SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 099948/23
(1) REPORTABLE:
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 07/11/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
PLUS 94 RESEARCH (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
And
N[...] U[...]
(ID NO: 7[...])
First Respondent
N[...] U[...]
(ID NO. 7[...])
(In her capacity as legal guardian of the minor child,
D[...] M[...] U[...])
Second Respondent
T[...] M[...] R[...] K[...]
(ID NO: 9[...])
Third Respondent
THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMITED
Fourth Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA Fifth Respondent
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
MBONGWE, J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This matter comes before the Court on the return day of an interim order
granted on 10 October 2023, pursuant to an ex parte application the Applicant
had brought in the Urgent Court.
THE PARTIES
[2] The Applicant is the erstwhile employer of the First Respondent.
[3] The First Respondent is sued in her personal capacity as the erstwhile
employee of the Applicant and as the Third Respondent, in her capacity as the
legal guardian of the minor child, D[...] M[...] U[...] , in whose name the First
Respondent has registered the property she had bought u sing the funds she
unlawfully syphoned from the Applicant.
[4] The Fourth Respondent is cited herein as one of the suppliers of the Applicant
who participated and acted in cahoots with the First Respondent in defrauding
the Applicant. No relief is sought against the Fourth Respondent.
[5] The Fifth Respondent is cited for the reason that it is the authority that
registered immovable referred to in para 3.
[6] The interim order referred to in para 1, supra, froze the First Respondent’s bank
account held with Standard Bank and directed the bank to furnish the Applicant
with bank statements for a specified period. The order was sought in the
context of serious evidence that the First Respondent was unlawfully
perpetrating fraud against the Applicant and syphoning money from it.
[7] The Applicant alleged that the Respondent had caused the payment of inflated
invoices to certain suppliers, who, upon receipt of payment, transferred
substantial sums into the Respondent’s personal account. The interim relief
was sought to preserve the funds and facilitate investigation.
[8] Following the grant ing of the interim order and the receipt of the First
Respondent’s bank statements , the Applicant discovered that an amount in
excess of R8 million had been paid into the Respondent’s account by the
Applicant’s suppliers as either kickbacks or the inflated portion of the supplier’s
invoice.
[9] The Applicant thereafter instituted action proceedings against the First
Respondent to recover the funds , c ulminating in the Applicant obtaining a
summary judgment order . An order for the sequestration of the First
Respondent’s estate was also obtained prior to the return date, which had been
extended a few times before the matter before me on 22 April 2025 for
confirmation of the interim order.
[10] The Respondent oppose d the confirmation of the interim order, raising issues
that appear to relate to the summary judgment already granted. These
objections are misplaced. The summary judgment has conclusively determined
the Respondent’s liability and is not subject to reconsideration in these
proceedings.
[11] The confirmation of the interim order is not moot or academic. Although the
principal relief has been adjudicated, the interim order reserved costs, and its
confirmation remains necessary to regularise the procedural history and to
enable the Applicant to seek those costs. In MEC for Economic Development,
Gauteng and Another v Vilakazi and Others 1, the Supreme Court of Appeal
emphasised that interim orders serve a functional purpose and may require
confirmation even after final relief has been granted.
[12] In the present matter, the interim order served its intended purpose: it
preserved the status quo , enabled the Applicant to obtain critical financial
1 (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126.
records that supported the recovery of misappropriated funds. There is no legal
or factual basis to discharge it.
ORDER
[13] I, therefore, make the following order:
1. The interim order granted by this Court on 10 October 2023 is hereby
confirmed.
2. The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including
the costs reserved in the interim order.
MPN MBONGWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant: Adv M Barnard
Instructed by: Dixon Attorneys
For the 1st and 2nd Respondents: Mr N Voyi
Instructed by: Ndumiso Voyi Incorporated
Date of hearing: 24 April 2025
Date of judgment: 07 November 2025