About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 925
|
|
Rooth and Wessels INC T/A RW Attorneys v Gundo Wealth Solutions (PTY) Ltd (4105/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 925 (18 November 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 4105/2019
DATE
:
2022-10-12
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
YES
18
NOVEMBER 2022
In
the matter between
ROOTH
AND WESSELS INC T/A RW ATTORNEYS
Applicant
And
GUNDO
WEALTH SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
Respondent
J
U D G M E N T
VILJOEN,
AJ
:
This
is an application in which the applicant seeks the final,
alternatively provisional winding up of the respondent. The
application,
on the face of it, was launched in February 2019 and for
reasons unknown to me was only set down for today.
The
applicant applies for the matter to be removed from the roll on
account of the fact that the security bond from the Master that
is
required was not uploaded to CaseLines. There is no explanation
before me for this situation, apart from the submission that
is made
from the bar that the matter had been passed between various
attorneys in the same firm and that somewhere between the
various
attorneys the documents were lost.
On
further enquiry from the applicant’s counsel, it appears that
there is also no indication whether service of the application
was
effected on the Master, the South African Revenue Service or the
employees of the respondent, as is required by section 346(4A)
of the
Companies Act
, 1973. There is no explanation for why this
aspect of the application has not been clarified in the two and a
half years since
the matter had been launched.
The
respondent opposes the removal of the matter from the roll. The
respondent contends that the application is fatally defective
and
that it should therefore be dismissed, and be dismissed with costs on
the scale as between attorney and client.
I
am in agreement that little purpose would be served in postponing
this application any further. It would be, in my view, unduly
prejudicial to the parties involved to prolong this saga any further.
The question then is whether the respondent is entitled to
the costs
of the application on an attorney-and-client scale.
I
am inclined to agree with the respondent. The applicant in the matter
is a firm of attorneys. It ought to know the requirements
for
liquidation applications and it ought to know what is required to
have a matter set down and successfully argued. The applicant
appears
not to have taken any heed of any of the rules of court or the
practice manual or indeed the
Companies Act
. And in so far as
that is the case, it is the author of its own misfortune.
Under
these circumstances, to allow the respondent to be out of pocket
because of an application that never got off the ground appears
to me
unfair and without justification; and in those circumstances, I am of
the view that the respondent should be compensated
as fully as
possible for costs incurred in this application. In the
circumstances, therefore, I make the following order:
ORDER
The application is
dismissed with costs on a scale as between attorney and client.
H
M VILJOEN, AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES:
APPEARANCE
FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV P BALOYI
APPEARANCE
FOR THE RESPONDENT: MR M B MHANGO
MzanziSA
Business Solutions
Arbour
Square
Cnr
Melle & Juta Street
Ground
Floor, Office 3
Braamfontein,
2001
TEL:
011 339 1289 Fax: 0866120244
CELL:
079 437 4335
E-mail:
mzanzisa1@gmail.com