About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAKZPHC 76
|
|
Peoples' Forum Against Electronic Bingo Terminals v KwaZulu-Natal Gaming and Betting Board and Others (5847/18P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 76 (7 December 2018)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
Case
No: 5847/18P
In
the matter between:
SHANKUMAR
MAHARAJ
IN
RE:
THE
PEOPLES' FORUM
AGAINST
ELECTRONIC BINGO TERMINALS
APPLICANT
AND
KWAZULU
-NATAL GAMING AND BETTING BOARD
1
ST
RESPONDENT
MS
PORTIA NONHLANHLA BALOYI NO
2
ND
RESPONDENT
VITUBYTE
(PTY) LTD T/A GOLDRUSH MALVERN
3
RD
RESPONDENT
VAN
X
(PTY) LTD T/A GOLDRUSH BALLITO
4
TH
RESPONDENT
GALAXY
BINGO AMANZIMTOTI (PTY) LTD
T/A
GALAXY AMANZIMTOTI
5
TH
RESPONDENT
GALAXY
BINGO PAVILION (PTY) LTD
T/A
GALAXY PAVILION
6
TH
RESPONDENT
GALAXY
BINGO GATEWAY (PTY) LTD
T/A
GALAXY
GATEWAY
7
TH
RESPONDENT
GALAXY
BINGO SOUTH COAST (PTY) LTD
T/A
GALAXY BINGO SOUTH COAST
8
TH
RESPONDENT
POPPY
ICE TRADING 18 (PTY) LTD
POPPY
ICE
9
TH
RESPONDENT
AFRISUN
(PTY) LTD T/A SIBIYA CASINO AND
ENTERTAINMENT
KINGDOM
10
TH
RESPONDENT
PEERMONT
GLOBAL KZN (PTY) LTD
11
TH
RESPONDENT
RULE
7 APPLICATION: JUDGMENT
Delivered on:
MNGADI,
J
[1]
This is an interlocutory application. It is an
ex
parte
application by Shankumar
Maharaj for a declaratory order that he has satisfied the court, as
required by Rule 7(1) of the Uniform
Rules of Court , that he is
authorised to represent the applicant in the main application. He
seeks an order in the following terms:
a) That he is and was
at all times material authorised to represent the applicant in case
No. 5847/2018P
b) That he was and was
at all times authorised to instruct attorneys Franke & Associates
to be attorneys
of record for the applicant in Case No. 5847/2018P
That
insofar as it may be necessary anything which the said Shankumar
Maharaj and or the said Stephen Franke may have done on behalf
of the
applicant in Case No. 5847/2018P, be and is hereby ratified
[2]
The application is opposed by the 3
rd
,
4
th
and 9
th
Respondents represented by Mr Barry Roux SC as well as by 5
th,
6
th
,
7
th
and 8
th
Respondents represented by Mr Pillemer SC. Shankumar Maharaj is
represented by Mr Pammenter SC. The 10
th
and 11
th
Respondents have filed a notice to abide with the decision of the
court.
[3]
In the main application the applicant is THE PEOPLES FORUM AGAINST
ELECTRONIC
BINGO TERMINALS hereinafter referred to as ('THE PEOPLES
FORUM' also known as the FORUM,) which in its constitution, is
described
as an association which is a non-profit organisation
established for a public benefit, its objectives are to prevent and
fight
against the over proliferation of gambling in the province of
KwaZulu-Natal with a power to institute or defend any legal or other
proceedings and to settle any claims. In the main application !"HE
PEOPLE!:> FORUM instituted an urgent application to
interdict the
KwaZulu-Natal Betting and Gaming Board and the third to ninth
respondents, pending proper compliance with the provisions
of the
KwaZulu Natal Gaming and Betting Act 8 of 2010 ,alternatively;
pending proper compliance with the provisions of the
Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
from approving the use of
electronic bingo terminals (EBTs) contrary to the provisions of the
applicable legislation. In the main
application, the third, fourth
and ninth respondents were referred to as 'the Goldrush respondents '
and the fifth to eight respondents
as 'the Galaxy Respondents '.
Maharaj deposed to the founding affidavit wherein he stated that the
institution of the main application
was authorised by the applicant
and he was authorised by the applicant and he had appointed the
attorneys Franke and Associates
to act on behalf of the applicant.
The respondents, as their initial response to the main application
disputed the authority of
the attorneys Franke and Associates to act
on behalf of the FORUM as well as the authority of Maharaj to act on
behalf of the FORUM
in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 7.
[4]
In this application, the
ex parte
application, Maharaj seeks to
satisfy the court that he is authorised to act on behalf of the FORUM
and being so authorised, he
was authorised to give mandate to Franke
and Associates to act on behalf of the FORUM. Initially all the
respondents in the main
application filed notices disputing
authority. The filing of the dispute of the authority of the
attorneys resulted in Maharaj
signing certain processes himself which
lead to the filing of a dispute of Maharaj's authority to act for the
Peoples Forum.
Rule 7(1)
in its amended form refers to disputing the
authority of anyone acting on behalf of a party. In
ANG
Umvoti Council Cauccus and Others v Umvoti Municipality
2010
(3) SA 31
(KZP) p41 the court indicated that the
Rule 7(1)
in its
amended form has widened its scope.
[5]
The usual way of satisfying a court that a person is authorised to
represent
another in legal proceedings as required by
Rule 7(1)
is by
filing a power of attorney, although it is possible to do it in
another manner such a filing of affidavits. See
Administrator
Transvaal v Mponyane
&
Others
1990 (4) SA 407
(W) wherein It was
held: 'In my view there is nothing in
Rule 7
in its present form that
requires the authorisation of an attorney to be embodied in a
document styled a power of attorney. The
provisions of
Rule 7
specifically requiring powers of attorney in appeals fortifies the
impression that otherwise an attorney's mandate can be proved
otherwise than by the production of a written power of attorney.' .
Rule 7(1)
provides:' Subject to the provisions of sub-rule(2) and (3)
a power of attorney need not be filed, but the authority of anyone
acting on behalf of a party may within 10 days after it has come to
the notice of a party that such person is so acting, or with
leave of
the court on good cause shown at any time before judgement, be
disputed, where after such person may no longer act unless
he
satisfied the court that he is authorised so to act, and to enable
him to do so the court may postpone the hearing of the action
or
application' For purposes of this judgment it is accepted that the
Rule 7(1)
notices filed by the respondents were framed in compliance
with the Rule and were filed as prescribed in the Rule.
[6]
In response to the
Rule 7(1)
notices, the applicant filed a power of
attorney. The respondents objected to the filed power of attorney.
The filed power of attorney
reads as follows:
'POWER
OF ATTORNEY
BY
PEOPLES FORUM AGAINST ELECTRONIC BINGO TERMINALS
ifo
SHANKUR
MAHARAJ & FRANKE AND ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS
Appointment
of agent to commence or defend proceedings
We
the undersigned persons and or bodies referred to in Column 1 of
Annexure A hereto of the address referred to in CAOLUMN 2 of
Annexure
A hereto, do hereby appoint:
SHANKUMAR
MAHARAJ ,
OF
No 1 Peppergreen Walk, Greenbury, Phoenix (hereinafter called "agent"
Being
the Chairperson of
THE
PEOPLES FORUM AGAINST ELECTRONIC BINGO TERMINALS
(hereinafter
called "the forum"
With
power of substitution to be the Forum's lawful agent in the Forum's
name by means of an attorney to de any or all of the following
acts
or things
1
To accept service of any application, summons, writ or other legal
process.
2.
To represent the Forum in Court. To appear and represent the
Forum in
any court and before all judicial or other officers whomsoever as the
Agent may consider advisable.
3.
To institute action/application. In the Forum's name to make
any
demand or claim and to commence and conduct any action, application
or other proceedings in any court or tribunal for the recovery
of any
debt, sum of money, right, title, interest, property or matter
whatsoever now due or payable or in any way belonging to
the Forum by
means or on any account whatsoever, and to prosecute , discontinue,
compromise, terminate or abandon such action ,
application or
proceedings as the Agent may see fit.
4.
To defend proceedings and make counterclaims. To defend any
action or
proceedings brought against the Forum or in which the Forum may be
joined in any court or tribunal (including any counter-claim
or claim
in reconvention made against the Forum) or to compromise any such
action or proceedings or consent to judgement therein
if the Agent
sees fit, and on the Forum 's behalf to make any claim in
reconvention in such action or proceedings and such relief
ads the
Agent may see fit.
5.
Appeals. To note, prosecute, withdraw or abandon any appeal
which may
be allowed by law against any judgement or order made in the Forum's
favour in any such action or proceedings, and to
defend any appeal
against such judgment or order made in the Forum's favour.
6.
To sign documents. To sign all documents necessary in connection
with
any such action or proceedings.
7.
To employ attorneys. When necessary, to employ and pay attorneys,
such to include in particular Stephan Joseph Franke of Franke and
Associates Attorneys and any counsel instructed by such attorneys
Ito
conduct any such action, application
or proceedings.
8.
To take other means of recovering debts. To take such other
lawful
ways and means in order to recover any sum of money or other thing
whatsoever which may be understood by the Agent to owing,
belonging,
or payable to the Forum by any person whomsoever.
9.
Generally for effecting the purposes aforesaid, to do and cause
to be
done whatsoever may be requisite as fully and effectually for all
intents and purposes as the. Forum might or could do if
personally
present and acting herein.
AND
Ratification.
The Forum hereby ratify and agree to ratify all and whatsoever the
Agent lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
of these presents in
the past and in the future
AND
Irrevocability
. I declare that the power hereby created will be irrevocable.'
[7]
Despite the filing of the said power of attorney, the respondents
persisted
in their dispute of authority. They,
inter
alia,
contented that the filed power
of attorney did not authorise the bringing of the main application.
In terms of
Rule 7
there is no obligation on the party disputing the
authority to state the grounds on the basis of which the authority is
disputed.
Further, once what is regarded as proof of authority has
been filed, it is the party whose authority has been disputed, to
enquire
from those who disputed the authority whether now they are
withdrawing their dispute of authority, if not, to proceed with an
application
to satisfy the court of his/her authority to act. In
Shosholoza infra
at
par 25 the court placed the burden on those disputing the authority
which , in my view, is not stipulated in
Rule 7
(1)
[8]
The background to the challenge to authority was that Maharaj
(according
to the 3
rd
, 4
th
respondents, in loyal support of Afrisun , by virtue of a beneficial
relationship, was using the name of the Forum to advance the
objections of Afrisun against the use of EBTs by the Goldrush and
Galaxy respondents. Goldrush was concerned about the true identity
of
the Peoples Forum, as Goldrush had good reason to believe that
Maharaj used the Peoples Forum as a 'concerned applicant' but
in
reality it was Afrisun in disguise and that names and entities of
members and non-members of the Peoples Forum were being used
to
constitute the Peoples Forum , in circumstances where the so-called
members or a substantial number of them (denying any possible
quorum), have no knowledge of the main application and no interest in
the activities of Maharaj and Afrisun. As such, Goldrush
disputed
that the chairperson Maharaj had the required resolutions and
authority to act on behalf of the Peoples Forum and to instruct
the
attorneys Franke and Associates to act on behalf of the Peoples
Forum. In the main application, in the answering affidavit,
Goldrush
averred that the Peoples Forum was merely a front for Afrisun which a
licensed casino is consistently opposed to the use
of EBTs by bingo
operators such as Goldrush and Galaxy. Afrisun had previously applied
unsuccessful for a slmilar relief to the
one in the main application.
[9]
To meet the consistent challenge, Maharaj obtained affidavits in
identical
terms from 12 of the 19 constituent members of the Forum
confirming that they were aware of the main application and approved
the
bringing thereof. The effort did not satisfy the respondents.
They pointed out that it appeared Maharaj, although required by the
Constitution of the Forum to keep a correct updated record of the
members of the Forum he was not sure of who were the members
of the
Forum. He could not obtain consensus of all the members of the Forum.
His failure to attach a register of the members was
an indication
that there were problems with the register of members. The attorneys
of Goldrush pointed out that a resolution from
the Applicant in
accordance with the Constitution was required. There was no proof of
unanimous consent. The persons that deposed
to the affidavits did not
furnish proof that they were so authorised by their organisations.
[10]
Lastly, Maharaj attempted to call a Special General Meeting of
members of the Forum. He states
that the Governing Board of the
applicant instructed attorney Stephen Franke of Franke and Associates
to give a notice of an urgent
electronic meeting of the members of
the applicant to be held on Sunday 15 July 2018. Franke sent a
Whatsapp message to all the
representatives of the constituent
members. He had created a Whatsapp group for purposes of enabling the
representatives to communicate
with one another. He sent a message
with an agenda and proposed resolutions , namely; condoning the short
period for calling a
meeting; ratifying all proceedings taken under
case no. 5847/1SP; authorising him to sign all necessary papers for
the prosecution
of the case; appointing certain members to the
Governing Board. He then asked those who could not participate in the
meeting to
give him a proxy to do so on his or her behalf. In the
founding affidavit, Maharaj annexed an e-mail with a list of those
that
responded to the message and the record of their responses.
Franke was the only person physically present in the meeting. Maharaj
avers that only five members did not give Franke a proxy and four of
those had deposed to the rejected affidavits. Maharaj concludes
all
the members of the applicant have either granted authority in the
affidavits or in meeting wherein they granted proxy or to-both.
[11]
The respondents point out that the Constitution of the FORUM in
clause 7 provides that
the management of the Peoples Forum is
entrusted to its Governing Board and therefore, in order for the
Peoples Forum to bring
legal proceedings, such proceedings must be
authorised by the Governing Board, at a meeting attended at least by
two thirds of
the members of the Board. The affidavits do not
constitute the decision of the Governing Board neither is the
Whatsapp meeting.
Neither of the two established consensus by all the
members of the Peoples Forum since no members register was furnished
with the
signed his affidavit. In my view, the respondents are
correct in their objections to both the affidavits purporting to
grant authority
as well as to the 'meeting' convened by Whatsapp
messages and physically attended by Franke only. I am also in
agreement with the
respondents that the power of attorney furnished
in response to Rule 7(1) notices does not on the face of it show that
it was a
decision of all the members of the Peoples Forum and neither
does it purport to be a resolution by the Governing Board of the
FORUM.
[12]
In his reply to the answering affidavit in the Rule 7(1) application
Maharaj stated;' With
regard to the resolutions required by those
parties objecting to my authority, my authority goes back to a
resolution passed at
a meeting of the Forum on the 31 August 2014. In
terms of a resolution signed on 3 February 2015, I was authorised to
sign all
documents in relation to any legal action taken by the
Forum. I annex marked BT1. BT2 and BT3 copies of those resolutions.'
The
resolution BT3 reads as follows:'
RESOLUTION
PASSED AT A MEETING OF THE PEOPLES FORUM AGAINST ELECTRONIC BINGO
TERMINALS (THE FORUM AGAINST EBT'S)
HELD
AT DURBAN ON THE 3
RD
FEBRUARY 2015
RESOLVED
THAT;
1. The
Forum launches an Application for Leave to Appeal to Intervene in the
matter of the Premier of KwaZulu-Natal under Case Number 1366/2015
and any other litigation it is deemed desirable in the interests
of
the objects of the Forum.
2. That
Sham Maharaj is hereby authorised to sign all documents in relation
to any legal action taken by the Forum'
The
Resolution is signed by the Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson, The
Secretary, the Vice-Secretary and the Treasury. The Resolution
was
not invoked by Maharaj as the basis of his authority in the founding
affidavit. It was also not, at any stage in the engagement
with the
respondents on the issue, disclosed or referred to. The applicant's
counsel in his Heads of Argument did not refer to
the said
Resolution. Generally speaking, an applicant must stand or fall by
his founding affidavit, he is not allowed to make out
his case or
rely upon new grounds in the replying affidavit. The main foundation
of the application is the allegation of facts
stated therein, because
those are the facts which the respondent is called upon either to
affirm or deny. See
Shosholoza
par. 26. In
casu
Maharaj
made the necessary factual averments in his founding affidavit but
failed to refer to the 3 February 2015 Resolution. Therefore,
it is
not entirely correct that Maharaj made his case in reply. He
certainly provided proof in reply. In any case it is not an
absolute
rule that a case made in reply must not be considered, it may result
in the respondents being granted leave to supplement
their papers
with a suitable order relating to costs. The respondents did not seek
leave to supplement but were content to challenge
on merit the
Resolution referred to in reply.
[13]
The respondents argue that the Resolution did not at all refer to the
main application.
It was taken in 2015 relating to the proceedings in
question at the time. If Maharaj, it is argued, believed the
Resolution to
the source of his authority he would have referred to
it from the start. He would not have embarked to all the said
stratagems
as the source of his authority. The reliance, it is
argued, on the 2015 resolution indicates that there are problems in
the constitution
of the Governing Board of the FORUM. If the
Governing Board was in place, there would have been no attempt to
elect new members
of the Governing Board in the one-man meeting.
[14]
It appears to me that it is possible that Maharaj had forgotten about
the 3 February 2015
Resolution or belatedly realised that it could be
the basis of his authority. The various attempts to prove his
authority indicates
that Maharaj believed that the application was
authorised by the FORUM. It indicates that a substantial number of
interested persons
supported the action that was being taken in the
interest of the Forum. It is also important that the Resolution was
produced by
Maharaj, although belatedly. There is no suggestion that
the FORUM is non-existent although there is an indication that the
Governing
Board might not be operational. In
Gainsford
and Others NNO v Hiab AB
2000 (3) SA
635
(W) at 640A it was held: 'All the party whose authority is
challenged has to do is to satisfy the court that he has the
necessary
authority so to act which authority can even be obtained
after the action has been instituted or the defence filed.' The
Galaxy
respondents argued strongly that: ' Maharaj in reply was
relying on a Resolution not part of his case in the founding
affidavit.
This coupled with his various flawed attempts to prove his
authority is indicative of a person who has no authority. In the main
application, it is argued, Maharaj alleged supposed authority to
bring that application making allegations which were plainly false.
The annexure to that affidavit which was alleged to be a round robin
resolution by all members of the Forum authorising the main
application and Maharaj's and Franke & Associates roles therein
was furthermore a fraud. There was in fact no such resolution
by the
Forum's members'. As indicated somewhere in this judgement, Maharaj
has not handled the issue in the ideal manner, but it
will be going
too far to infer from that, that he is a sham. This application does
not deal with the substance of the matter. The
respondents concede
that the 3 February 2015 Resolution is in the correct format as the
resolution of the FORUM granting the necessary
authorisation as
envisaged in Rule 7(1). Their gripe with it is that it does not refer
to the current litigation.
[15]
The argument that the Resolution properly interpreted is no authority
for the proceedings
in the main application, in my view, overlooks
the fact that the resolution refers to any other litigation which is
within the
objectives of the FORUM. It contemplated future litigation
if it is within the objectives of the FORUM. The fact that the
Resolution
refers to if deemed desirable does not change the
substance of the Resolution. The phrase 'deemed desirable' was meant
to accommodate
the FORUM in that it was not obliged to get involved
in each and every litigation which is in line with its objectives.
There is
no doubt that the issues in the main application are in line
with the objectives of the FORUM. In my view, the Resolution promotes
access to courts and it will be correct to give to it a generous
construction. See
Lawyers for Human
Rights
&
Another
v Minister of Home Affairs
&
Another
[2004] ZACC 12
;
2004
(4) SA 125
(CC) at par 17.
[16]
It is argued that there is no indication that the Peoples Forum as of
today authorises
the institution of the current legal proceedings.
The FORUM is a legal entity. There is no suggestion that its has
stopped existing.
Decisions properly taken continue to exist until
rescinded. It is not necessary to revive decisions taken for them to
have force
and effect. If the Resolution is a properly taken decision
of the Peoples Forum it provides the necessary lawful authority to
Maharaj
and consequently to Franke and Associates even if Maharaj had
temporarily forgotten about it and thinking that he had other source
of his authority. It provides the jurisdictional basis for the
institution of the application by the Peoples Forum and for Maharaj
to put that decision into effect. The Resolution is construed
contextually and textually bearing in mind that it is a Resolution
at
a meeting, it is not a provision in a statute. What matters is the
substance rather than the form. See
Shosholoza
Auctioneers
CC
v
Ngqura Habour Contractors
(4222/07)
[2008] ZAKZHC 87
(4 November 2008 at par.20. In
South
African Allied Workers Union v De Klerk
1990
(3) SA 425
(ECD) at 436f/j-437b it was stated: 'The power of attorney
contemplated by Rule 7(1) is a power to take certain formal
procedural
steps, namely; to issue process and sign court
documentation such as summons or notice of motion on behalf of a
litigant... '
[17]
It is correct that the Rule 7(1) application was brought by Maharaj
not by Franke and Associates.
Stephan Joseph Franke deposed to a
confirmatory affidavit in support of the fact that he had been
properly appointed as an attorney
for the Forum. Rule 7(1) refers to
the person whose authority is disputed satisfying the court of his
authority so to act. Maharaj
instructed Franke and Associates to act
for the Forum. It was in his interest to ensure that his authority
and that of Franke and
Associates is sorted out. It would have been
an unnecessary duplication for Franke and Associates to lodge a
similar application.
Rule 7(1), due to amendments made to it, cover a
wider scope that the authority of the attorney to act in the matter.
It also covered
the position of Maharaj to act on behalf of the
Forum. Therefore, the relief sought in the notice of motion is, in my
view, within
the provisions of Rule 7(1).
[18]
In addition, Maharaj argues that the main application was brought to
vindicate constitutional
rights, namely; the right to equality and
the right to an environment which is not harmful to wellbeing.
Section 38 of the Constitution
draws a distinction between private
litigation and litigation of a public character. In the latter,
different considerations may
be appropriate to determine standing to
launch litigation and courts should adopt a broad rather than a
narrow approach to standing
to ensure that constitutional rights
enjoy the full measure of protection, so it is argued. In my view,
Maharaj misses the point.
In these proceedings the standing of the
Peoples Forum is not the issue. The issue is the authority of Maharaj
and that of Franke
& Associates to represent the Peoples Forum.
[19]
On the question of costs. The general rule is that costs follow the
result. It appears
to me that even if Maharaj had produced the 3
February 2015 Resolution when the Rule 7(1) notices were served, the
respondents
would have continued to dispute his authority. There is
no indication that they would have framed their challenge
differently.
The various attempts made by Maharaj to satisfy the
respondents of his authority were an attempt to establish that the
institution
on the proceedings was not a frolic of his own. They were
pathetic attempts, but I do not think they justify Maharaj being
deprived
of his costs since the result favoured him. In my view, the
3 February 2015 Resolution is valid and of force and effect. It
authorises
Maharaj to act on behalf of the FORUM in the litigation
envisaged in the main application. Maharaj is entitled to appoint the
attorneys
Franke & Associates to act on behalf of or to assist
the FORUM in the envisaged litigation.
[19]
In the result. I make the following order:
1. That
in terms of Rule 6 (12) (a), the forms and service provided for in
the Uniform Rules of Court be disposed of and that this matter be
treated as an urgent application.
2. That
it be and is hereby declared that Shankumar Maharaj has satisfied
this Court in terms of Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of Court:
2.1 that he is and was
at all times material hereto authorised to represent the applicant in
Case No. 5847/201BP,
2.2 was and was at all
times material hereto authorised to instruct attorneys Franke &
Associates to
be attorneys of record for the Applicant in Case Number
5847/201SP
3. That
insofar as it may be necessary, anything which the said Shankumar
Maharaj and or the said Stephan Franke may have done on behalf of the
applicant in Case Number 5847/2015P, be and is hereby ratified.
4. That
the 3
rd
,
4
th
,
5
th
,
6
th
,
7
th
,
8
th
and 9
th
respondents, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay costs of the
application, including costs occasioned by the employment of
two
counsel, where so employed.
MNGADI,
J
APPEARANCES
Case
Number
: CASE NO: 5847/18P
For
Shankumar Maharaj
: Adv C.J. PAMMENTER SC
Represented
by
Franke & Associates
c/o Austen Smith
Pietermaritzburg
For
the 3
rd
4
th
and 9
th
respondents:
Adv. Barry
Roux SC
With Adv. M Smith
Instructed
by :
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyer Inc.
c/o Ayoob Attorneys
Pietermaritzburg
For
the 5
th
,
6
th,
7
th
and 8
th
respondents
: Adv Maurice Pillemer SC
With Adv. Paul Farlam SC
Instructed
by :
Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs
c/o Tatham Wilkes Inc.
Pietermaritzburg
Date
of Hearing
30 November 2018
Date
of judgement
07 December 2018