Symes N.O and Others v Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd and Others (34782/19; 2023/03612) [2025] ZAGPJHC 806 (8 August 2025)

44 Reportability
Insolvency Law

Brief Summary

Insolvency — Consolidation of actions — Application for consolidation of two actions by joint liquidators of Over-All Express (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) — First action against Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd concerning payments made by the company — Second action against individuals and entities involved in the alternative claim regarding the same payments — Claims in both actions arising from the same set of facts and payments — Court granting consolidation for convenience and efficiency in adjudication of related claims.

THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Numbers: 34782/19 and 2023-03612

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED: YES

DATE -

—{ SIGNATURE J

In the matter between:
SYMES N.O, MARYNA ESTELLE First Applicant
MEDUPE N.O, TSEPO Second Applicant
MOOLLAJIE N.O, ABDURUMAN Third Applicant
[In their capacity as Joint Liquidators
of Over-All Express (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)]
and
AUTO AND TRUCK TYRES (PTY) LTD First Respondent
JOHN ROBERT CHARLES BEAUMONT Second Respondent
JOHN DEON AUBY Third Respondent
MJB ROAD FREIGHT (PTY) LIMITED
tla PREMIER LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS Fourth Respondent
DALY MAQUBELA OLIPHANT INCORPORATED Fifth Respondent

IN RE:
In the matter between: Case No: 34782/2019
SYMES N.O, MARYNA ESTELLE First Plaintiff
MEDUPE N.O, TSEPO Second Plaintiff
MOOLLAJIE N.O, ABDURUMAN Third Plaintiff
[In their capacity as Joint Liquidators
of Over-All Express (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)]
and
AUTO AND TRUCK TYRES (PTY) LTD Defendant
AND
In the matter between: Case No: 2023-038612
SYMES N.O, MARYNA ESTELLE First Plaintiff
MEDUPE N.O, TSEPO Second Plaintiff
MOOLLAWJIE N.O, ABDURUMAN Third Plaintiff
[in their capacity as Joint Liquidators
of Over-All Express (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)]
and
AUTO AND TRUCK TYRES (PTY) LTD First Defendant
JOHN ROBERT CHARLES BEAUMONT Second Defendant
JOHN DEON AUBY Third Defendant
MJB ROAD FREIGHT (PTY) LIMITED
tla PREMIER LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS Fourth Defendant
DALY MAQUBELA OLIPHANT INCORPORATED Fifth Defendant
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14h00 on 8 August
2025.
JUDGMENT
2

JE SMIT AJ

[1] This is an application for the consolidation of two actions instituted by the joint
liquidators of Over-All Road Express (Pty) Limited (in liquidation) (ORE).

[2] ORE was liquidated by special resolution registered with the Companies and
Intellectual Property Commissioner (CIPC) on 5 December 2018. On 24 April
2019, the voluntary liquidation was converted into a compulsory liquidation by
order of Court.

[3] The first action was instituted in or about October 2019 under case number
34782/19. The defendant is Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Limited (Auto).

[4] | The second action was instituted in or about April 2023 under case number
2023-038612. The defendants are John Robert Charles Beaumont
(Beaumont), John Deon Auby (Auby), MJB Road Freight (Pty) Limited t/a
Premier Logistics Solutions (Premier) and Daly Maqubela Oliphant
Incorporated (DMO).

[5] For the sake of convenience, the applicants will be referred to as the plaintiffs
and the respondents as the defendants.

[6] In both actions, the plaintiffs claim from the defendants the setting aside of
certain payments made by ORE, in terms of s26(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 24
of 1936 (the Insolvency Act).

[7] It is uncontroversial that, save for a payment of 4 July 2018 in the amount of
R70,000.00, the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants concern the exact
same payments made by ORE.

[8] In the first action, Auto amended its plea after an opposed application for leave
to amend was granted. Auto contended that it was Beaumont and Auby who
received the payments, not Auto.

[9] According to the plaintiffs, this resulted in the institution of the second action
against Beaumont, Auby, Premier and DMO. The plaintiffs claim therein is in
the alternative and should it be found that Auto did not receive, or benefit from,
the payments from ORE.

3