About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 545
|
|
Winterboer v CX Developers CC and Others (28/7/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 545 (28 July 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 2015/11797
In the matter between:
STEFAN
WINTERBOER
APPLICANT
and
CX3 DEVELOPERS
CC
1
ST
RESPONDENT
ASTRID LAURA
NEEB
2
ND
RESPONDENT
CAREL ALBERT EDUARD
NEEB
3
RD
RESPONDENT
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMITED
4
TH
RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
WRIGHT J
1.
The
applicant is a businessman. He is a one third interest holder in the
1
st
respondent close corporation. The second and third respondents are
the other interest holders. The fourth respondent bank does
not
oppose any relief sought. The applicant says that he was defrauded by
the second and third respondents, they having tricked
him into
relinquishing his signing powers over the 1
st
respondent’s bank account with the intention of using the 1
st
respondent’s funds for their own benefit and to the prejudice
of creditors of the 1
st
respondent. His signing powers were restored at some point by an
agreed court order. The second and third respondents deny the
allegations of fraud. It is not necessary for me to find fraud. What
is before me is only the question of whether or not
the 1
st
respondent should be wound up. It cannot be said that the
applicant is the cause of the impasse.
2.
The
applicant has shown beyond any doubt that the members of the first
respondent are in deadlock. They agree on almost nothing,
they have
not been able to meet, the allegations and counter-allegations are
very serious and are unresolvable between them. The
first respondent
has creditors who are prejudiced or may be prejudiced by this state
of affairs. The first respondent is in substance
a partnership in
collapse. There is mistrust, tension and deadlock.
Compare
Sader
v Warda Butchery 2008 JDR 0387 (N)
at paragraph 11. It matters not that the second and third
respondents are in agreement with each other. What matters
is
that there are two opposing sides who can’t get along to the
extent indicated above.
3.
ORDER
The first respondent close corporation is wound
up.
GC WRIGHT J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
On behalf of the Applicant:
Adv M Coetsee
Instructed by:
ML Schoeman Attorneys
012 562 9900
On behalf of the Respondent:
Adv H Van Zyl
Instructed by:
De Bryun & De Kock Inc
086 133 2335
Date of Hearing:
28
July 2015
Date of Judgment:
28
July 2015