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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAFSHC 356
|
|
Jonker and Another v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa and Others (3159/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 356 (15 November 2024)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable/Not
reportable
Case Number: 3159/2020
In
the matter between:
LOUIS
JONKER
First
Applicant
JOHANNA
JACOBA JONKER
Second
Applicant
and
THE
LAND AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK
OF SOUTH AFRICA
First
Respondent
DEON
MARIUS BOTHA N.O.
Second
Respondent
JOHANNES
ZACHARIAS HUMAN MULLER N.O.
Third
Respondent
LOUISA
SIBIYA N.O.
Fourth
Respondent
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Fifth
Respondent
AFFECTED
PARTIES OF JONKER PRODUCTS CC
AS
PER LIST ANNEXED AS ANNUXURE “A”
Sixth
Respondent
Coram:
Reinders, J
Heard:
4 November 2024
Delivered:
This judgment was handed down in open court on 15 November 2024 and
distributed to the parties via electronic
mail communication.
Summary:
Application for Leave to Appeal
ORDER
The application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs
consequent upon
the employment of two counsel.
JUDGMENT
[1]
On 16 August 2024 I declined an application to set aside a final
order of liquidation that was
granted against Jonker Products CC (in
liquidation) [the CC]. I further declined to grant interim relief
prohibiting the liquidators
of the CC from continuing with the
liquidation processes pending an action to be instituted by the
applicants to set aside the
liquidation proceedings.
[2]
The reasons for not granting the relief can be gleaned from my
written judgment. It suffices to
say that an opposed application for
the liquidation of the CC served before court and, having heard
argument, a provisional order
of liquidation was granted on 9
September 2020 which order was subsequently confirmed on 29 October
2020.
[3]
In reaching the conclusion which I did on 16 August 2024 I found that
the question of
locus standi
was ventilated and adjudicated by
the courts granting the provisional as well as the final orders
whilst the application was comprehensively
opposed. I concluded that
in those circumstances I cannot sit as a court of appeal on those
orders and that the application to
set aside the final order of
liquidation could therefore not succeed.
[4]
The applicants before me now contend that I was wrong in that
conclusion and that a court of appeal
would come to a different
conclusion than me, wherefore they seek leave to appeal to the
Supreme Court of Appeal, alternatively
a court which I may direct in
my discretion. The first respondent opposed the relief claimed.
[5]
The trite principles applicable to applications of this nature have
been alluded to by the parties
and do not need to be restated. The
applicants relied on both
s17(1)
(a)(i)
[that the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success] and (ii) [that there is some other
compelling reason why the appeal
should be heard] of the
Superior
Courts Act, 10 of 2013
.
[6]
I have read my judgment and carefully considered the able arguments
by both parties. I have also
considered the heads of argument filed
in this application for which I thank the legal representatives
appearing on behalf of the
respective parties.
[7]
I am of the view that another court would not come to a different
finding, nor are
there compelling reasons
why an appeal should be heard by another court.
[8]
Accordingly I grant the following order:
The application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs
consequent upon
the employment of two counsel.
C REINDERS, J
Appearances:
On
behalf of the Applicants:
Adv
FG Janse van Rensburg
Instructed
by:
Eugene
Geyser Attorneys
c/o
Lovius Block Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of the First Respondent:
Adv
J Marais SC
Adv
S Tsangarakis
Instructed
by:
Strydom
and Bredenkamp
c/o
Cooper Majiedt Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN