Edenbloem (Pty) Ltd v Highway Junction Harrismith (Pty) Limited (947/2002) [2004] ZAFSHC 20 (25 March 2004)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2004
>>
[2004] ZAFSHC 20
|

|

Edenbloem (Pty) Ltd v Highway Junction Harrismith (Pty) Limited (947/2002) [2004] ZAFSHC 20 (25 March 2004)

IN THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case
No.: 947/2002
In
the matter between:
EDENBLOEM
(PTY) LIMITED
Applicant
and
HIGHWAY
JUNCTION HARRISMITH
Respondent
(PTY)
LIMITED
___________________________________________________________
CORAM:
LOMBARD,
J
___________________________________________________________
HEARD
ON:
11 MARCH 2004
___________________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
25 MARCH 2004
___________________________________________________________
This is an application for the variation of an order of
this Court (Hancke, J) dated 14 November 2002 reading as follows:
“
1. Die sitering van die
respondent waar dit ookal in die stukke verskyn, gewysig word deur na
die respondent te verwys as “Highway
Junction Harrismith (Edms)
Beperk”.”
(Record p.326)
to read:
“
1.1 Dat die sitering van die
Respondent, waar dit ookal in die stukke verskyn, gewysig word deur
na die Respondent te verwys as “Harrismith
Highway Group (Edms)
Bpk”.
(Record p.363-364)
It is for present purposes common cause that:
(i) The applicant launched winding up proceedings
against Harrismith Fuel and Service Centre (Pty) Ltd (Harrismith
Fuel) by way of
notice of motion dated 18 March 2002, which
application is still being opposed.
(ii) The applicant by way of notice of motion dated 4
November 2002 applied for an order:
“
1. Dat die sitering van die
respondent, waar dit ookal in die stukke verskyn, gewysig word deur
na die respondent te verwys as “Highway
Junction Harrismith (Edms)
Beperk;”
(Record p.307)
This application was, without any opposition, granted on
14 November 2002. (The basis of this application was according to the
deponent
on behalf of the applicant, attorney Kets that the
respondent, Harrismith Fuel and Highway Junction Harrismith (Pty) Ltd
“een en
dieselfde entiteit is” (Record para 4.4 at p.312).)
(iii) Thereafter and by way of notice of motion dated 18
March 2003 Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd alternatively Harrismith
Highway Group
(Pty) Ltd (formerly trading as Harrismith Fuel)
launched an application for the dismissal of applicant’s winding up
application.
In the supporting affidavit deposed to by one Barend
Christoffel Deysel he,
inter alia
,
states that:
(a) there is no company registered under the name of
Highway Junction Harrismith (Pty) Ltd;
(b) there is a company registered under the name of
Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd of which he is a shareholder and director;
(c) Harrismith Fuel has changed its name to Harrismith
Highway Group (Pty) Ltd on 19 October 1998 (record p.352);
(d) Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd is not indebted to the
applicant and has never had any dealings with it.
(iv) Thereafter and by way of notice of motion
(incorrectly dated 19 November 1998) applicant launched “’n
teenaansoek” in terms
of which it seeks to have the order dated 14
November 2002 varied to read as follows:
“
1.1 Dat die sitering van die
Respondent, waar dit ookal in die stukke verskyn, gewysig word deur
na die Respondent te verwys as “Harrismith
Highway Group (Edms)
Bpk”.
The notice of motion and supporting affidavit (again
deposed to by attorney Kets) were delivered on 30 April 2003.
(Record p.363-366).
This application is being opposed by Harrismith Highway
Group (Pty) Ltd and Highway Junction (Pty Ltd. No replying affidavit
was
delivered.
Before debating the merits herein the following remarks
by Van Dijkhorst J in
DUNCAN NO v MINISTER
OF LAW AND ORDER
1985 (4) 1 SA (TPD)
at
3C
are relevant:
“
In
Bell
v Bell
1908 TS
887
at 894 Innes CJ stated that Courts will not lightly vary their
own orders even though they may be of a merely interlocutory
character.
On the other hand, the words of Damhouder
Practijcke
in Civile Saken
146.2 and 4 are apposite. It is not dishonourable to come from error
to the light of the truth and he who corrects himself needs
not be
corrected by another.”
It is common cause that the provisions of Rule 42(a)(1)
find application herein. It reads as follows:
“
The
court may, in addition to any other powers it may have,
mero
motu
or upon the
application of any party affected, rescind or vary:
(a) An order or judgment
erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of any party
affected thereby;”
It is clear from the wording of the sub-rule that for
the variance of the order herein three requirements must be met:
(1) The order must be erroneously sought or erroneously
granted;
(2) such an order must have been granted
in
the absence of the applicant, and
(3) the applicant’s rights or interests must be
affected by the order.
(My underlining).
(See
MUTEBWA v MUTEBWA
2001 (2) SA 193
(TkHC) at 199F-G
).
The
order presently under scrutiny was granted upon an application by the
applicant – let alone in its absence. On this ground
alone the
application cannot succeed.
The application for the variation of the order dated 14
November 2002 must, in my view, in any event, be refused. Attorney
Kets in
applicant’s founding affidavit alleges,
inter
alia:
“
1.1 Ek is ‘n prokureur van
die Agbare Hof en wat praktiseer as direkteur van Strydom &
Bredenkamp Ing te Schoemanstraat 983,
Hatfield, Pretoria.
1.2 Ek is die prokureur van
rekord van die Applikant.
1.3 Ek is behoorlik gematig om
hierdie verklaring namens die Applikant af te lê in my voorname
hoedanigheid.
1.4 Die inhoud van hierdie
verklaring val binne my persoonlike kennis en wete, tensy waar anders
aangedui, en die feite hierin vervat
is waar en korrek.
3.1 Die Applikant het ‘n
aansoek gebring vir likwidasie van die maatskappy wat voorheen bekend
was as Harrismith Fuel and Service
Centre (Edms) Bpk. Die aansoek is
geloods onder saaknommer 947/2002 in hierdie afdeling van die Agbare
Hof.
3.3 Dit het onder my aandag
gekom teen ongeveer September 2002 dat die naam van die Respondent in
die registers van die Maatskappyekantoor
verander is wat tot gevolg
het dat ek onder saaknommer 2002/3968 namens die Applikant ‘n
aansoek geloods het in terme waarvan die
sitering van die Respondent
gewysig word na Highway Junction Harrismith (Edms) Bpk.
3.4 Die
omstandighede van die regshulp gevorder, blyk volledig uit die
aansoek onder saaknommer 3968/2002. Ek het die aansoek en
die
verandering van die sitering na Highway Junction Harrismith (Edms)
Bpk, gebaseer daarop dat ‘n dagvaarding aangeheg by die
aansoek
daarvan melding maak dat Harrismith Fuel and Service Centre (Edms)
Bpk, soos wat die Respondent voorheen gesiteer was, verander
is na
Highway Junction Harrismith (Edms) Bpk.
3.5 Ondanks
die feit dat die aansoek op die Respondent se prokureurs van rekord
beteken was, en ondanks die feit dat die Respondent
se prokureurs
bewus was daarvan dat die besonderhede in die dagvaarding wat betref
die naamsverandering ook foutief is, is die aansoek
van die Applikant
onder saaknommer 3968/2002 ontmoet deur stilswye.
3.6 Die
Agbare Hof het op 14 November 2002 ‘n bevel toegestaan in terme
waarvan die sitering van die Respondent verander is deurdat
daar na
die Respondent verwys word as “Highway Junction Harrismith (Edms)
Bpk”. ‘n Afskrif van die bevel word hierby aangeheg
as
Aanhangsel “MK1”.
3.9 Eers
op 17 Maart 2003 en soos blyk uit die aangehegte skrywe, het die
Respondent se prokureurs, Greyling Orchard Ing in ‘n skrywe
aangedui dat die huidige beskrywing van die Respondent, Harrismith
Highway Group (Edms) Bpk is, nadat ‘n naamsverandering op 19
April
1998 by die Registrateur van Maatskappy geregistreer is soos blyk uit
Aanhangsel “RISP2” tot die Applikant se aansoek.
Ek heg ‘n
afskrif van die skrywe van Greyling Orchard Ing hierby aan, gemerk
Aanhangsel “MK2”.
3.9.1 Ek het op 18 Maart 2003 op
die gemelde brief van die Respondent se prokureurs geantwoord, soos
blyk uit Aanhangsel “MK3”
hierby. In die brief het ek onder
andere die Respondent se prokureurs daarop gewys dat die Respondent
reeds maande tyd gehad het
om die ware toedrag van sake met
betrekking tot die beskrywing van die Respondent aan die lig te
bring.
3.9.2 Dit is immers duidelik uit
die kontrakte aangeheg dat die aansoek vir likwidasie, dat die
kontrakte aangegaan is met die Respondent
onder die voormalige
benaming daarvan, naamlik Harrismith Fuel and Service Centre (Edms)
Bpk.
3.9.5 Ek
voer aan, met eerbied, dat die aansoek en die regshulp daarin
gevorder, geen regsbasis het van enige aard nie en dat die
aansoek
afgewys behoort te word met ‘n gepaste kostebevel soos op die skaal
van prokureur en eie kliënt op grond daarvan dat die
Respondent en
sy prokureurs opsetlik en maande lank versuim het om die korrekte
beskrywing van die Respondent bekend te maak deur
bloot ‘n
opponerende verklaring te liasseer. Verder, het die Respondent en sy
prokureur opsetlik versuim om nieteenstaande die
feit dat dit
duidelik was dat die aansoek wat voor die Agbare Hof gedien het op 14
November 2002, ‘n foutiewe hofbevel tot gevolg
sal hê, nogtans die
aansoek met stilswye begroet het.
3.9.7 Ek
vra die Agbare Hof om verskoning dat hierdie verklaring nie binne die
tydperke soos gelas deur die Agbare Hof op 20 Maart
2003 geliasseer
is nie. Weens die teenstrydige bewering oor die ware beskrywing van
die Respondent wat telkemale deur die Respondent
alternatiewelik sy
prokureur opgehaal word het ek dit nodig geag om navraag te rig aan
die Registrateur van Maatskappye. Ten spyte
van vele versoeke en
opwagtinge by die kantore van die Registrateur van Maatskappye te
Pretoria gedurende die laaste maand was ek
egter nie in staat om die
inligting te verifieer nie aangesien die Registrateur nie die
maaskappylêer kon opspoor nie. Die Applikant
is dus verplig om
staat te maak op die feite soos nou deur die Respondent en sy
prokureur geopenbaar.”
(Record pp. 367-373.
Correspondence referred to not annexed).
In an answering affidavit delivered on behalf of
Harrismith Highway Group (Pty) Ltd and Highway Junction (Pty) Ltd the
following
is,
inter alia
,
stated:
“
7.1.2 By
causing the name of the Respondent to be changed in terms of His
Lordship’s order of the 14
th
of November 2002, Applicant introduced a non-existent party and
accordingly the proceedings were rendered a nullity.
7.1.3 The proceedings having
been rendered a nullity, it is not open to the Applicant to now
attempt to resuscitate same by substituting
Highway Group as the
Respondent.
7.2.1 In its incorrectly dated
notice of motion, the Applicant seeks to vary His Lordship’s order
of the 14
th
of November 2002.
7.2.2 I
respectfully submit and I am so advised that such a variation can
only be secured in terms of Rule 42 of the rules of the
above
Honourable Court which sets out the specific parameters/circumstances
which need to be present in order for such an order to
be granted.
7.2.3 In
its application for variation, the Applicant has failed to set out
the jurisdictional facts which would fit in with one or
more of the
requirements of the Rule and accordingly and on that basis alone,
Applicant’s application cannot, with respect, succeed.”
(Record pp. 444-446).
No
replying affidavit was delivered.
Mr Farrell, for the applicant, accepts that the founding
affidavit does not clearly and fully explain why the said order was
erroneously
sought and or granted. He contends, however, that such
facts can be gathered from what has been alleged in other affidavits
delivered
in these winding up proceedings.
Mr Basslian, for the respondent, on the other hand,
points out that in the answering affidavit the applicant’s
attention was,
inter alia
,
specifically drawn to its failure to comply with the provisions of
Rule 42(1)(a). (Record p.445).
Applicant obviously ignored such a warning as no
replying affidavit was, as already indicated, delivered.
It is trite law that in notice of motion proceedings an
applicant’s cause of action must be fully set out in the founding
affidavit(s).
As was properly conceded by Mr Farrell no cause of
action has been set out in applicant’s founding affidavit. The
application was
based on “hearsay information” obtained mainly
from respondent’s attorneys – the deponent Kets failed to satisfy
herself
about the correctness thereof –what is more, the attorneys
now get blamed for furnishing her with such wrong information and are
threatened with costs orders – an attitude which is disappointing.
She is in control of her client’s case and if she in the
process
errs she must face the consequences and not endeavour to blame or
hide behind others for her mistake – if the latter compels
her to
approach this Court for relief it is imperative that she should take
it into her full confidence. To contend, as Mr Farrell
did, that
this Court can and must collect the relevant facts supporting
applicant’s application from other affidavits delivered
herein, is
unacceptable – surely the respondent is entitled to be afforded an
opportunity to reply to the applicant’s cause of
action as set out
in its founding papers.
Finally
it is, as already mentioned, common cause that there is no company
registered under the name of the respondent.
By granting the said order, the winding up proceedings
were, according to Mr Basslian, rendered a nullity as no such company
existed
at the time when the winding up application was launched and
a nullity cannot be amended.
VAN HEERDEN v DU PLESSIS
1969 (3) SA 289
(O);
FRIENDS OF THE SICK ASSOCIATION v COMMERCIAL
PROPERTIES
1996 (4) SA 154
(D&CLD);
DEVONIA SHIPPING LTD v LUIS (YEOMAN SHIPPING CO
LTD (INTERVENING)
1994 (2) SA 363
(CPD);
ROSSNER v LYDIA SWANEPOEL TRUST
1998 (2) SA 123
(W)
Although the facts in all the above quoted cases differ
from the facts herein the principle remains in essence the same and
that is
where a party to any legal proceedings is non-existent and
accordingly not a legal persona, such proceedings are a nullity and a
nullity cannot be amended.
The application is consequently dismissed with costs,
including the costs of 4 December 2003.
_________________
D.J. LOMBARD, J
On behalf of Applicant:
Adv.
S.T. Farrell
instructed
by
Symington
& De Kok
On behalf of Respondent:
Adv.
M. Basslian
instructed
by
McIntyre
& Van der Post
/scd