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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 786
|
|
Nexgen Agency Network (Pty) Ltd v Midos Logistics and Others (2025/059821) [2025] ZAGPJHC 786 (6 May 2025)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 2025/059821
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED: YES/NO
DATE:
06/05/2025
In
the matter between:
NEXGEN
AGENCY NETWORK (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
MIDOS
LOGISTICS
First
Respondents
MOTIVE
LOGISTICS (PTY) LTD
Second
Respondent
REDA
ABDELNABY MAHROUS ELSHEILKH
Third
Respondent
MAGISTRATE
H VIANA
Fourth
Respondent
CLERK
OF THE COURT
Fifth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
EPSTEIN AJ
1.
This application has been brought in the Urgent Court of 6 May 2025.
The matter has previously served before the Magistrate’s
Court
and this Court.
2.
The First and Second Respondents are represented by Advocate Kotze.
The Applicant, which is not represented by an attorney
or counsel,
wishes to be represented by its CEO, Ms Govindsamy, who is the owner
of 100% of the shares in the Applicant.
3.
Ms Govindsamy is aware of the law relating to representation of
juristic persons. Unless there are exceptional circumstances,
a
juristic person cannot be represented by someone who is not a
practicing legal practitioner. Ms Govindsamy is not a practicing
legal practitioner.
4.
In her founding affidavit Ms Govindsamy states:
“
The Applicant
appreciates the value in appointing legal counsel and greatly
respects the court rules. In this regard, however, given
the degree
of urgency and limitations due to time constraints, we are faced with
two significant issues in appointing legal counsel
and attorneys at
this time.
A. The time period
between the date of setting this matter down and the matter being
heard is a minimum. Two to three days.
B. It is
unreasonable for the Applicants to expect any legal counsel to be
appointed on such short notice and to take on an
application of this
level of complexity and at the scrutiny of the urgent court and still
expect a positive outcome.”
5.
Ms Govindsamy informed the Court that her previous counsel withdrew
on 28 April 2025 and the attorney withdrew the same
day. That is just
over a week ago. Ms Govindsamy says that she knows the facts of the
matter and the time is too short to allow
attorneys and advocates to
prepare for this matter in the urgent court.
6.
It seems that this matter has an extensive history of which both the
Applicant and the Respondents are aware.
7.
Whilst I have a discretion to allow non-practicing legal
representatives to act on behalf of a company, I do not accept
that
there are exceptional circumstances in this matter. Furthermore, I
would have expected a formal application for this with
all the
necessary details furnished. Insofar as the details have already been
furnished to me, and on the submission that there
has been limited
time to prepare a matter of this nature, I do not accept that the
reasons advanced constitute exceptional circumstances.
8.
The order I make is that the matter is struck off the roll with
costs.
EPSTEIN
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG