1

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA



IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NUMBER:2024-048389




In the matter between:

PREMIER CONSULTING SERVICES (PTY) LTD APPLICANT

and

MARYNA ESTELLE SYMES N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT
GONASAGREE GOVENDER N.O. SECOND RESPONDENT
TARSUS SHARED SERVICES (PTY) LTD THIRD RESPONDENT

In re the matter between:
MARYNA ESTELLE SYMES N.O. FIRST PLAINTIFF
GONASAGREE GOVENDER N.O. SECOND PLAINTIFF

(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO
(3) REVISED: YES / NO

24 November 2025 ____
DATE SIGNATURE

2

TARSUS SHARED SERVICES (PTY) LTD THIRD PLAINTIFF
and
PREMIER CONSULTING SERVICES (PTY) LTD DEFENDANT

Heard: 28 October 2025
Order: 28 October 2025
Written reasons: 24 November 2025



WRITTEN REASONS

WINDELL J:
Explanatory note : On 28 October 2025 this court removed three interrelated and
materially identical Rule 7 interlocutory applications from the roll with costs. These are
the reasons. For ease of reference, the parties are referred to as they appear in th e
actions, namely as plaintiffs and defendants.
Introduction
[1] The Rule 7 applications were launched by the defendants in three actions instituted
by the same plaintiffs, Symes N.O. and Govender N.O., in their representative capacities
as the joint liquidators of Kings Vision Holdings (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation), together with
Tarsus Shared Services (Pty) Ltd (“Tarsus”). Although the Rule 7(1) notices were
delivered as far back as November 2023, the interlocutory applications were only issued

3

on 27 February 2024, shortly before the defendants’ exceptions to the particulars of claim
were due to be argued on 18 March 2024.
[2] The present action forms part of a broader set of proceedings in which the
liquidators seek to recover approximately R39 million from various entities alleged to have
received impeachable dispositions or benefits from Kings Vision Holdings (Pty) Ltd prior
to liquidation. The defendants are , respectively: The Palace Boutique Hotel (Pty) Ltd
(case number 2023 -048465), Kelvinview Estate (Pty) Ltd (case number 2023 -033529),
and Premier Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd (the defendant in the present matter ). The
same legal representatives appear throughout.
[3] In each action, the first three claims are pursued by the joint liquidators, while the
fourth claim ( actio pauliana ) is advanced by Tarsus. The defendants responded by
challenging the authority of Tarsus, the liquidators, and AB Scarrott Attorneys to act. In
doing so, they raised issues concerning the validity of the indemnity issued by Tarsus,
the liquidators’ appointment and powers, alleged conflicts of interest in the attorneys’
mandates, and the relationship between these proceedings and a pending revie w and
reconsideration application.
[4] As appears from the defendant’s heads of argument, the Rule 7 challenge s in
these matters were prompted by developments in the Garvelli action, a similar matter
involving the same plaintiffs and the same legal representatives. 1 In that matter, the
defendant, Garvelli (Pty) Ltd (“Garvelli”), raised virtually identical objections to the
authority of the liquidators, the authority of AB Scarrott Attorneys, and the validity of the

1 Symes N.O and Others v Garvelli (Proprietary) Ltd Case no: 037126/2023, Gauteng Local Division.

4

documents on which they relied. Th e application came before Dlamini J, who, after
considering the same liquidators, the same attorneys and the same authority
documentation, held that AB Scarrott Attorneys was properly authorised and ordered
Garvelli to pay the costs.
[5] Against that bac kdrop, the chronology in the present matter becomes important.
The pleadings in the Rule 7 application closed in April 2024. The plaintiffs filed their heads
of argument in December 2024, but the defendants failed to do so. As a result, the
plaintiffs set the application down for hearing in the ordinary opposed motion court, where
it was removed, and thereafter enrolled in the Insolvency Court. When the defendants still
did not file their heads of argument, the plaintiffs brought an application to compel, which
was granted in September 2025.
[6] The defendants became aware of the judgment and reasons in the Garvelli matter
on 20 June 2025 . In the correspondence that followed, the defendants stated that,
although they did not agree with the correctness of the judgment of Dlamini J, they would
nevertheless proceed on the basis of that judgment. They accepted that, on the approach
in Garvelli, the authority dispute was in substance a locus standi issue to be addressed
by way of special pleas rather than through Rule 7 and proposed that the interlocutory
applications be removed from the roll, with the authority issues to be determined at trial
and the costs of the interlocutories to stand over. While several aspects of the
correspondence conveyed this position, the most telling passage reads as follows:
“Accordingly, for reasons of practicality, our clients are accepting the approach of the court in the
Garvelli judgment that the issues raised by way of the Rule 7 notices should be dealt with by way
of special pleas in the action. In other words, the appl ications in terms of Rule 7 are moot. The

5

issues can be addressed by way of special plea and our clients which have filed pleas in the
actions have already raised such issues anyway, ex abundanti cautela”.

[7] The plaintiffs did not agree to the defendants’ proposal, pointing out that the Rule
7 applications had not been withdrawn and accordingly remained pending and required
adjudication. Despite this, the defendants did not withdraw the applications; instead, they
persisted with the Rule 7 relief, as is evident from the supplementary affidavit delivered
shortly before the hearing on 28 October 2025 and from their own heads of argument.
But their continued pendency on CaseLines prevented the matters from being certified
trial-ready and delayed the allocation of trial dates. Indeed, the defendants themselves
recorded in their heads that the unresolved Rule 7 proceedings were holding up the
progression of the actions. The plaintiffs were therefore compelled to enrol the
interlocutories in order to remove the procedural impediment created by the defendants’
refusal to withdraw applications that no longer served any purpose.
[8] The defendants’ supplementary affidavit did not advance any new factual or legal
basis for maintaining the interlocutories. It confirmed that, although they continued to
dispute the correctness of the judgment of Dlamini J, they would proceed on the basis of
that judgment and accepted that the Rule 7 complaints were now raised as special pleas
to be determined at trial. Their stance, however, was that if this Court agreed with that
approach, the interlocutory applications should simply be removed from the roll. But if the
Court declined to remove them, the defendants nevertheless intended to argue the Rule
7 applications and sought to persist in the relief originally prayed for. At the hearing on 28
October 2025, counsel for the defendants accepted that Rule 7 was not the correct

6

mechanism—as held in Garvelli—but stated that he had no instructions to withdraw the
applications. This left the defendants acknowledging that the issues were properly for the
trial court, yet insisting that, failing their removal, the interlocutories shou ld still be
ventilated in this Court. No substantive justification was offered for persisting with that
position in the face of the pleaded special pleas, the Garvelli judgment, the existence of
related proceedings, and the defendants’ own concessions in t heir correspondence and
papers.
[9] In these circumstances, the Rule 7 applications had become redundant. The
defendants had accepted that the authority disputes were to be determined at trial and
had already pleaded them as special pleas in the actions. Yet, despite that acceptance,
they declined to withdraw the interlocutories, leaving them on CaseLines as unresolved
applications that served no purpose and impeded the certification of the matters as trial -
ready. The plaintiffs were therefore required to prepare for and attend a hearing brou ght
about solely by the defendants’ refusal to withdraw interlocutory applications that were no
longer capable of yielding practical relief, thereby incurring wasted costs.
[10] Fairness required that the defendants bear the wasted costs associated with
persisting in interlocutory proceedings incapable of providing any practical relief and
which, by their continued pendency, obstructed the advancement of the litigation.
[11] For these reasons, the court ordered that the Rule 7 applications be removed from
the roll with costs on the party-and-party scale, Scale C.

7


_______________________________
L WINDELL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines.


Appearances
For the applicant: AC Botha SC
MH Nieuwoudt
Instructed by: SIM Attorneys INC.
For the respondents: G. Amm SC
Instructed by: A.B. Scarrott Attorneys
Date of Hearing: 28 October 2025
Date of Judgment: 28 October 2025
Written reasons: 24 November 2025