About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 1238
|
|
Gundo Wealth Solutions (Pty) Limited v Anooshkumar Rooplal N.O (25073/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1238 (20 October 2025)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 25073/2021
DATE
:
2025.10.20
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes / NO
(3)
REVISED
In the matter between
GUNDO WEALTH SOLUTIONS
(PTY) LIMITED
and
ANOOSHKUMAR ROOPLAL N.O.
EX TEMPORE
JUDGMENT
BLOU
,
AJ
:
1.
This matter came before me as an application for rescission,
purportedly in terms of the Uniform Rule 31(2)(b), to rescind
and set
aside an order placing the applicant under winding-up. The applicant
was represented by Mr Razwinane in person, the respondent
being
represented by counsel. Mr Razwinane, who claimed to be a director
and a holder of half the shares in the company or the
joint holder
with his wife of all the shares (the evidence is unclear) seeks to
secure a postponement of the matter, the applicant’s
attorneys
having withdrawn on 16 October 2025.
2.
Although the applicant is the company in question, it is common cause
from the papers that the applicant is in liquidation.
As will appear
below, an application for the present relief is required to be
brought under section 354(1) of the Companies Act.
This would be at
the instance of the liquidator, member or creditor. The applicant
cannot be the company itself.
3.
This on its own would justify the dismissal of the application.
4.
There are other reasons for that result.
5.
I took Mr Razwinane through the applicant’s papers, on the
assumption that he was in fact, authorised to represent
the
applicant, and explained to him, with the assistance of counsel for
the respondent, that the applicant, as named, being the
company,
enjoyed no standing to bring any application for rescission. Second,
I explained to the parties that this is not a case
where Rule
31(2)(b) finds application.
6. According to
Ward Another v Smit and Others (In re: Gurrv Zambia Airways
Corporation Limited
1988 (3) SA 175
(SCA)
it is not competent to
“rescind” a winding-up order in terms of the Rules of
Court or common law. An application under
section 354(1) of the
Companies Act is necessary. Moreover, an application under that
provision requires more than just dealing
with the requirements that
would be applicable in an ordinary application to rescind a default
judgment. What is required is a
showing of exceptional circumstances,
and this would include a full synopsis of the current position of the
company, why it went
into liquidation, and whether its affairs have
been conducted with probity. Suffice to say that none of these
matters have been
traversed in the founding affidavit.
7.
In the circumstances, I explained to Mr Razwinane that the current
application was fatally defective in the respects set
out above, and
that there would be no point in ordering a postponement of the
matter.
8.
I advised him that if he was minded to obtain advice from new
attorneys, he should bring this judgment to their attention.
I also
asked the respondent’s attorneys to send this judgment by way
of email to Mr Raziwane and to refer him to the main
findings that I
have made as set out above.
9.
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
a) The application
made by the applicant (represented by Mr Raliam Razwinane) for a
postponement of this application is dismissed
with costs on scale A.
b) The application
for rescission dated 8 October 2024 is dismissed with costs on scale
A.
BY
ORDER
REGISTRAR