= 1
s/ #5 za ee y \\
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: ¥&S/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥ES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 25 August 2025 -
Case No. 121475/2024
In the matter between:
DAMONS, JUANITO MARTIN N.O. FIRST APPLICANT
VAN DER MERWE, ELZERI JANE N.O. SECOND APPLICANT
And
BEZUIDENHOUT, LEONARD FRANCOIS RESPONDENT
a
Coram: Millar J
2
Heard on: 18 August 2025
Delivered: 25 August 2025 - This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives by email, by being uploaded
to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The
date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 14HOO on 25 August
2025.
eT
ORDER
i TO
It is Ordered:
{1] The application is dismissed.
(2] There is no order as to costs.
NN $$$
JUDGMENT
NN $$$
MILLAR J
[1] The applicants are the liquidators of a company called CGB Capital (Pty) Ltd (in
liquidation) (CGB). These proceedings have been instituted against the
respondent in terms of section 34(1)(2) of the Companies’ Act’. The applicants
seek an order that the respondent (Mr. Bezuidenhout), who had rendered
services to CGB repay to the insolvent company, R533 650.00.
1 61 of 1973.
3
[2] The factual matrix upon which this application is brought is not contentious and
largely common cause. On 5 January 2023, an application was brought for the
liquidation of CGB. A final winding up order was subsequently granted on 27
February 2024. In terms of section 348(1) of the Companies’ Act, the effective
date for the liquidation is 5 January 2023.
[3] During November 2022, payment of the proceeds of an insurance policy in the
sum of R34 962 693.60 was paid into the trust account of the attorney's for CGB.
Subsequent thereto, CGB's attorney, Mr. Pienaar, approached Mr. Bezuidenhout
and introduced him to Mr. Fourie, the director of CGB.
[4] An agreement was reached that, acting as a consultant, Mr. Bezuidenhout would
provide legal and other advice to Mr. Fourie and CGB. The scope of the advice
was not limited but germane to the present proceedings and encompassed
advice regarding the disposition of the proceeds of the insurance policy and
subsequently thereto regarding the liquidation proceedings which were
unsuccessfully opposed by CGB. It is not in dispute that Mr. Pienaar and Mr.
Fourie both knew that Mr. Bezuidenhout had previously practiced as an advocate
and had been removed from the roll during 2011 =
[5] The onus is on the person who opposes the granting of the order to establish
circumstances which would move the Court not to grant otherwise.° Put
differently, in the present case, since Mr. Bezuidenhout has already been paid,
he need only establish that the applicants are not entitled to the order sought.
2 Pretoria Society of Advocates and Another v Geach and Others 2011 (6) SA 441 (GNP); General Council
of the Bar of South Africa v Geach and Others 2013 (2) SA 52 (SCA).
3 Lane NO v Olivier Transport 1997 (1) SA 383 (C).