About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 175
|
|
Save the Maize Belt Society and Others v Dialstat Trading 115 (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (098869/2023) [2026] ZAGPPHC 175 (20 March 2026)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
Case
No. 098869/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/
NO
(3) REVISED
DATE:
20 March
2026
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
SAVE
THE MAIZE BELT SOCIETY
FIRST
APPLICANT
OMAR,
ZEHIR
SECOND
APPLICANT
OMAR,
YASMIN
THIRD
APPLICANT
OMAR,
SULAIMAN
FOURTH
APPLICANT
MAHLANGU,
MOHAMED
FIFTH
APPLICANT
MLOMBO,
CONSTANCE
SIXTH
APPLICANT
MAHOLWANA,
FLORENCE
SEVENTH
APPLICANT
And
DIALSTAT
TRADING 115 (PTY) LTD
RESPONDENT
In
re:
DIALSTAT
TRADING 115 (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
And
SAVE
THE MAIZE BELT SOCIETY
FIRST
RESPONDENT
OMAR,
ZEHIR
SECOND
RESPONDENT
OMAR,
YASMIN
THIRD
RESPONDENT
OMAR,
ABU BAKR
FOURTH
RESPONDENT
OMAR,
EBRAHIM
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
OMAR,
SULAIMAN
SIXTH
RESPONDENT
MAHLANGU,
MOHAMED
SEVENTH
RESPONDENT
MAHLANGU,
WILLIAM
EIGHTH
RESPONDENT
MLOMBO,
CONSTANCE
NINTH
RESPONDENT
MAHOLWANA,
FLORENCE
TENTH
RESPONDENT
VAN
DER SCHYFF, SORAYA
ELEVENTH
RESPONDENT
PREUSS,
CLIVE
TWELFTH
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Millar
J
Heard
on:
13
March 2026
Delivered:
20
March 2026 - 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 10H30 on 20 March 2026.
ORDER
It
is Ordered
:
[1]
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[2]
The applicants (jointly and severally the one paying the others to
be absolved)
for the leave to appeal are ordered to pay the
respondent’s costs on the scale as between party and party
which costs
include the costs of counsel on scale C.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment and
order handed down by this
Court on 20 January 2026, in terms whereof
it was ordered
inter alia
that the first applicant for leave to appeal (Safe the Maize Belt
Society), is not a
universitas
personarum.
[2]
When the main proceedings were initially
instituted, all the respondents in those proceedings were represented
by a single firm
of attorneys. Shortly before the hearing of
the main application, some of the respondents appointed a different
set of attorneys
to represent them and thus at the hearing of the
main application, there were two legal teams representing the various
respondents.
The same has
occurred again with the applications for leave to appeal.
Instead of the applicants being represented by two
sets of legal
representatives, they are now represented by three. I mention
this because what appears to have occurred in
each instance, when a
new set of legal representatives were added, so too were the defences
in the main application and now in
the application for leave to
appeal , the grounds of appeal.
[3]
The main case turns on a straightforward
issue. Does formal compliance with the requirements for the
establishment of a
universitas
personarum
clothe such
universitas
personarum
with an eternally separate
legal personality irrespective of and notwithstanding non-compliance
with its own founding document?
This Court found that it did
not. The applicants for leave to appeal argue that it does and
that once established and so
clothed with the status, irrespective of
whether it complies with the terms laid down by its founders for its
very existence, it
continues to exist forever more irrespective.
[4]
In the context of the present case, the
respondent, Dialstat, has litigated extensively over the last 13
years against Save the
Maize Belt Society. Where Save the Maize
Belt Society was successful and costs were ordered against Dialstat,
it honoured
its obligations. However, the same cannot be said
for Save the Maize Belt Society and, as observed in the main judgment
in
paragraph [8], Save the Maize Belt Society, currently has
outstanding costs orders against it which remain unsatisfied for
R359 703.34.
[5]
Crucial and central to this aspect is the
lack of property held by Save the Maize Belt Society against which
claim could be made
to satisfy these costs orders. It was
argued for the applicants that even though it was a requirement for
universitas personarum
to
be able to own property, it was not a requirement that it actually
own such property.
[6]
It is this fine line over which the
applicants wish to step to hide behind the shield of the
universitas personarum
in
respect of costs orders made against it but in respect of which
Dialstat must stand and bear the consequences without recourse.
[7]
The issue identified above is to my mind
the crisp question that is to be decided in this application.
[8]
I have considered the applications for
leave to appeal, the heads of argument filed by the respective
parties, and the submissions
advanced in Court in support of the
granting of leave to appeal and in respect of its refusal.
[9]
I am of the view that the very purpose for
which a
universitas personarum
is established and the circumstances under which
the law allows private individuals to contract for the establishment
of a separate
legal entity can never be a weapon to emasculate a
successful party from enforcing court orders in its favour.
[10]
A
universitas
personarum
is designed to facilitate
commonality of purpose and action by private individuals but not to
provide them with a shield against
the consequences of such actions.
[11]
For the reasons set out above, I am not
persuaded that another Court would come to a different conclusion and
in the circumstances,
the application for leave to appeal must fail.
[12]
The costs will follow the result.
[13]
In the circumstances, it is ordered:
[13.1] The
application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
[13.2] The
applicants (jointly and severally the one paying the others to be
absolved) for the leave to appeal are ordered
to pay the respondent’s
costs on the scale as between party and party which costs include the
costs of counsel on scale C.
A MILLAR
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
HEARD
ON:
13 MARCH 2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED
ON:
23 MARCH 2026
IN THE APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST
APPLICANT:
ADV. T STRYDOM SC
INSTRUCTED
BY:
ZEHIR
OMAR ATTORNEYS
MR. Z OMAR
REFERENCE:
COUNSEL FOR THE
SECOND,
THIRD & FOURTH
APPLICANTS:
MR. Z OMAR
INSTRUCTED BY:
ZEHIR OMAR ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MS. Y OMAR
COUNSEL FOR THE FIFTH,
SIXTH & SEVENTH
APPLICANTS:
ADV. N ALLI
INSTRUCTED BY:
FARHAN CASSIM
ATTORNEYS
REFERENCE:
MR. F CASSIM
COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT:
ADV. M WESLEY SC
INSTRUCTED BY:
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT
SA INC.
REFERENCE:
MR. A VOS/MR. S LAHRI