Page 1 of 4
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: CT02446ADJ2025
In the matter between:
MARQUES RUTTER APPLICANT
and
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY COMMISSION RESPONDENT
Presiding Member: Brian Jennings
Date of handing down of decision: 3 March 2026
DECISION
_________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 4
Introduction
1 The applicant is Marques Rutter.
2 The respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
("CIPC"), a state -owned company which is responsible, inter alia , for
administering the register of companies in South Africa.
3 On 15 October 2025, the applicant filed (Form CoR9.1) to the CIPC to
reserve the following names: " CAR FRESH, FRESH CO and FRESH
INDUSTRIES". On 16 October, CIPC issued a Confirmation Notice of Name
Reservation (Form CoR9.4) indicating that –
3.1 the proposed names are confusingly similar to names already on the
register as contemplated in section 11(2) of the Companies Act , 2008
("Companies Act"); and
3.2 the name “FRESH INDUSTRIES”, has been reserved in the name of the
applicant from 16/10/2025 to 17/04/2026 under reservation number
9445767814.
4 The applicant filed a Form CTR142 and an affidavit which was not
commissioned by a commissioner of oaths in terms of the Justice s of the
Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963. It is important to note
that the affidavit was executed by the applicant on 28 October 2025.
5 Following this, the Tribunal , on 29 October 2025, requested the applicant to
resubmit an affidavit which had been commissioned by a commissioner of
oaths.
Page 3 of 4
6 On 31 October 2025, the applicant resubmitted an affidavit which was duly
commissioned by a commissioner of oaths and a case number was issued .
Following this, the applicant’s papers were served on the respondent on 4
November 2025.
Errors
7 I note from the papers before me that the commissioned affidavit that was
filed by the applicant is dated 28 October 2025, while the relevant member of
the South African Police Service ( as commissioner of the affidavit ) dated
his/her certification as 30 October 2025. In light of this, it is clear ex facie the
affidavit that the applicant did not sign the affidavit in the presence of the
commissioner of oaths. The affidavit is therefore not compliant with the
Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963 and the
regulations thereto.
8 The application is therefore procedurally defective.
9 While it is not necessary to proceed further with the application, I also point
out that while the Form CTR 142 was submitted by the applicant in his
personal capacity, the Form CTR 145 was submitted by Fresh Industries
Proprietary Limited (of which the applicant appears to be a director).
10 The default application pursuant to the Form CTR 145 is therefore also
procedurally defective as Fresh Industries Proprietary Limited has no
jurisdictional basis to submit the Form CTR 145 as it was not an applicant
pursuant to the proceedings brought in terms of the Form CTR 142.
Page 4 of 4
Order
In the circumstances, I make the following order:
10.1 the application is dismissed.
_____________________
BRIAN JENNINGS
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL