Page 1 of 4
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: CT02652ADJ2026
In the ex parte matter of:
Bronwyn Osman APPLICANT
Presiding Member: Brian Jennings
Date of handing down of decision: 18 May 2026
DECISION
_________________________________________________________________
Introduction
1 The applicant is Bronwyn Osman.
Page 2 of 4
2 The applicant filed Form CTR 142 with the Tribunal on 1 7 March 20261 but
failed to set out the name and address of the respondent in this initiating
document, intended to be the Companies and Intellectual Property
Commission (“CIPC”)2. It is noted that , in the applicant’s affidavit which was
submitted in support of her Form CTR 142, she has cited the Companies and
Intellectual Property Commission (“CIPC”).
3 We were also provided with a snippet of an email sent from the applicant to
the CIPC’s nominated email address which is intended to be proof of service
of the Form CTR 142 and supporting affidavit , without evidence of what was
served.
4 On 16 April 2026, t he applicant then filed F orm CTR 145 with the Tribunal
together with a supporting affidavit.
Application
5 As highlighted in Regulation 153(1) to the Companies Act, one of the
requirements for a default order is that the applicant must have served the
respondent with an initiating document.
6 I am not convinced, on a balance of probabilities, that this has occurred.
7 Firstly, I am not convinced there is an initiating document .
Regulation 142(3)(d) to the Companies Act requires the application (being
the Form CTR 142) to state the name and address of each person in respect
of whom an order is ought. This was unfortunately not done.
1 It must be noted that in the applicant’s Form CTR 142, the applicant states that the date of filing the Form CTR
142 was 17 March 2025, but it is clear from the papers before me that the applicant filed Form CTR 142 on 17
March 2026.
2 In fact, Form CTR 142 cites Africa Commerce Convergence Institute NPC as the respondent in the matter – which
is rather the subject matter of the application.
Page 3 of 4
8 Secondly, the deponent to the founding affidavit and the commissioner of
oaths who attested this founding affidavit share exactly the same name
(being Bronwyn Osman) (noting the signatures appear to be inverse similar
copies of one another). This leads me to reasonably conclude that the
deponent and the commissioner of oaths are one and the same person which
would cause this to be a defective affidavit under the Justices of the Peace
and Commissioners of Oaths Act, No. 16 of 1963 and if not, at the very least
would warrant an explanation.
9 Thirdly, I am unable to ascertain what has been served on the CIPC from the
email snippet included. There is no confirmation provided of what was
served.
10 In light of this, I conclude that the CIPC has not been properly identified as a
respondent to the matter; the founding affidavit is defective and even if these
grounds are wrong, proper service has not been affected on the CIPC.
11 If the barriers identified above were not enough, I now point out that the
affidavit filed in support of the Form CTR 145 includes an attestation from a
commissioner of oaths that the document before him is affirmed to be a
certified copy rather than confirmation of the application of the prescribed
oath or affirmation which would befit an affidavit. As such, this affidavit is
defective.
Order
12 In light of the above, the application as provided to me is unfortunately
procedurally defective and cannot proceed.
Page 4 of 4
13 The application is accordingly dismissed.
_____________________
BRIAN JENNINGS
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL