Reportable: YES/NO
Circulate to Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO
yi DIC Tr
xX oi aK a
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Case No: 1973/2023
In the matter between:
GIBSON MOLALE First Applicant
MBULELO BOSMAN Second Applicant
RIZWAAN ENGELBRECHT Third Applicant
SAMUEL MOLAWA Fourth Applicant
THAPELO REUBEN JANUARY Fifth Applicant
and
FERDINAND DAVID BITTERBOSCH First Respondent
NORTHERN CAPE CRICKET NPC
(Registration number: 2001/027403/08) Second Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION Third Respondent
In re:
FERDINAND DAVID BITTERBOSCH Applicant
and
NORTHERN CAPE CRICKET NPC
(Registration number: 2001/027403/08) First Respondent
GIBSON MOLALE Second Respondent
MBULELO BOSMAN Third Respondent
RIZWAAN ENGELBRECHT Fourth Respondent
SAMUEL MOLAWA Fifth Respondent
THAPELO REUBEN JANUARY Sixth Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION Seventh Respondent
2
Heard: 29 July 2025
Delivered: 15 August 2025
Summary: Application for leave to appeal. Directors declared delinquent —
Section 162(5)(a) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is made:
1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
2. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent jointly
and severally, on the scale as between attorney and client, the one paying
the other to be absolved.
JUDGMENT: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAMOSEBO J
[1] The applicants seek leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Northern Cape
Division against the order and judgment I delivered on 21 February 2025
in which I declared them delinquent directors as contemplated in
s 162(5)(a) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. The applicants contend that
the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
[2] The test whether to grant leave to appeal is trite. Leave should only be
granted in terms of s 17(1)(a)(i) and/or s 17(1)(a)(ii)' if the applicant has
110 of 2013 Superior Courts Act
3
satisfied the court that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of
success or that there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard. Leave to appeal may also be granted if it will be in the interests of
justice to do so.
[3] It was submitted on behalf of the applicants that I erred in not following
the trite principles of evidence and authorities when I granted judgment in
the first respondent’s favour despite the first respondent having not
pleaded in particularity. The applicants claim that the first respondent
relied on a statutory provision and failed to plead the necessary factual
basis. The first respondent has, in my view, described the nature of his
application in the founding papers and the relief sought in terms of s
162(5) (a) and (c) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008. He has further listed,
in his founding affidavit, the additional sections of the Act as well as the
clauses in the Memorandum of Incorporation on which he relied while
explaining the role and involvement of each individual director and the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) which necessitated judicial intervention.
[4] It was argued on behalf of the applicants that this Court considered other
aspects like the resolutions of the meeting of 25 March 2023 and financial
mismanagement, among others, when they were not issues raised by the
first respondent in argument. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) made
17 Leave to appeal
(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges are of the opinion that —
(a) (i) _ the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting
judgments on the matter under consideration.
2 Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA); Mont Chevaux Trust v Goosen 2014
JDR 2325 (LCC); Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another (724/2019) {2021] ZASCA
31 (31 March 2021).