SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO : 37364/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 4/5/2026
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
MMATLOU APOLLO MOABELO First Applicant
LESETJA ROBERT LEDWABA Second Applicant
MADIMETJA JOSEPH LAMOLA Third Applicant
HASANI WISEMAN HLUNGWANE Fourth Applicant
SELLO ABRAM RAPHUTI Fifth Applicant
SCHALK JOHANNES VAN DER MERWE Sixth Applicant
and
INTELEK TRAINING & CONSULTATION CC First Respondent
SKY STAFF (PTY) LTD [in final liquidation] Second Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
BOTES,AJ
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The Applicants :
1.1 are former employees of the Second Respondent; and
1.2 initiated an application to this Court for an Order to rescind the Order
made by this Court on 6 October 2021 , in terms of which the Second
Respondent was finally wound up in the hands of the Third Respondent.
2. The aforementioned application was set down for hearing on 6 November 2023.
Dlamini J made an Order in the following terms on 6 November 2023 :
1. The Applicants' application is dismissed by default for non -
appearance.
2. The Applicants to pay the First Respondent's costs.1
3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned Order, the Applicants initiated an Application for
the Rescission of the Order made by Dlamini J on 6 November 2023. The Notice of
1 See : The Court Order - Caselines 000-4 and 000-5.
Motion was issued by the Registrar of this Court on or about March 2024, but uploaded
on Caselines on 6 March 2025.2
THE RELIEF WHICH THE APPLICANTS APPLY FOR IN THE NOTICE OF MOTION
4. The Applicants apply for an Order in the following terms :
1.1 That, the Draft Order that got granted to the Respondent on the 13 th
day of November 2023, in absentia, be and is hereby rescinded to the effect
that the Applicants could not have appeared to move an Application for
Default Judgment as it was due for adjudications as envisaged under
version of Rule 31(2)(A) of the Uniform Rules of this Court.
1.2 That, the Applicants be afforded another opportunity to have this
matter moved a step further in terms of the applicable Rules and Practice
Directives 01/2024 revised on the 26th day of February 2024.
1.3 That, this matter be set down on opposed roll for proper
adjudication.
1.4 That, the Draft Order be declared reviewable and set aside in terms
of the Uniform Rules of this Court.3
5. The application was set down for hearing in this Court on 19 August 2025.
6. Counsel for the Applicants moved the application and requested this Court to
make an Order in the following terms4 :
2 See: Application for Opposed Rescission - Caselines 011-11 to 011-15.
3 The Notice of Motion is dated "March 2024", but uploaded on Caselines on 6 March 2025.
4 Counsel for the Applicants presented this Court with a Draft Order which was not uploaded on
Caselines, but a copy of the Draft Order is attached to this Judgment, marked ANNEXURE X.
1. The Application for Rescission of the Sequestration Order dated the
15th day of October 2021 is granted;
2. The Sequestration Order dated the 15th day of October 2021 is hereby
rescinded and set aside;
3. The affairs of Sky Staff (Pty) Ltd, Second Respondent in this matter
is hereby removed from the Office of the Master of the High Court,
Gauteng, Pretoria, and placed back into the hands of the Board of Directors
of the Second Respondent;
4. Alternatively, the affairs of the Second Respondent is hereby placed
into the directorship and authorship of Global Airways Group, a holding
company.
7. The relief which the Applicants apply for in the Draft Order that was presented to
this Court on 19 August 2025 5 is in direct conflict with the relief which the Applicants
apply for in the Application for Rescission, referred to in paragraph 4 supra.
DID THE APPLICANTS COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 4 OF THE
UNIFORM RULES OF THE HIGH COURT?
8. Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court dictate the manner in which
applications should be served.
9. The First and Second Respondents are represented by Vezi de Beer
Incorporated, 3[...] A[...] Way, Lynnwood, Pretoria.6
5 Attached hereto, marked ANNEXURE X.
6 Hereinafter referred to as "Vezi & De Beer Inc".
10. From a reading of the Notice of Motion it seems that the application was
transmitted electronically7 to the following email address r[...].
11. I enquired from the Applicants' counsel whether this application was properly
served on the First and Second Respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Rule
4 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court. Counsel for the Applicants submitted that this
application was indeed properly served on the First and Second Respondents and that
Vezi & De Beer Inc. is aware of the application and the relief which the Applicants intend
to apply for.
12. On a proper scrutiny of the papers it is evident that neither this application, nor
the Notice of Set Down was properly served on the First and Second Respondents, as
provided for and envisaged in Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules of this Court.
13. The Applicants' attorney made no attempt to file a Service Affidavit in terms of
which the manner in which this application was served on the First and Second
Respondents is described and addressed.
14. Vezi de Beer Inc. addressed a letter to the Registrar of this Court dated 5 August
2024.8 Regard being had to the concerns raised by Vezi & de Beer Inc. in their
aforementioned letter, it is evident that Vezi & de Beer Inc. holds instructions to oppose
any application initiated by the Applicants vigorously.
15. I am therefore not persuaded that this application was properly served on the
First and Second Respondents.
CONCLUSION
7 Via email.
8 See: Correspondence addressed to the Registrar of this Court, dated 16 August 2024 - Caselines 000-
0001.
16. The Applicants' attorney is dutybound to serve this application on the First and
Second Respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Uniform Rules
of this Court. The Applicants' attorney is furthermore dutybound to depose to a Service
Affidavit in which the manner of service is comprehensively dealt with and canvassed.
17. In the premises an Order in the following terms is made :
1. The application is removed from the roll;
2. The Applicants' attorney is directed to serve this application on the
First and Second Respondents, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4
of the Uniform Rules of this Court;
3. The Applicants' attorney is furthermore directed to serve this
application at the offices of Vezi de Beer Inc., 3[...] A[...] Way, Lynnwood,
Pretoria, as well as electronically at the following email addresses:
m[...]
r[...]
m[...]
r[...]
Ref : M Mohamed/MAT69795
4. The Applicants' attorney is directed to serve a copy of this Judgment
on the First and Second Respondents at the offices of Vezi de Beer Inc., in
the manner as provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 supra;
5. The Applicants' attorney is directed to file a Service Affidavit in
which the manner in which this application was served on the First and
Second Respondents is described and addressed; and
6. No order in respect of the costs of this application is made.
FW BOTES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
“X”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case Number: 37364/21
In the matter between:
Mr. Mmatlou Apollo Moabelo First Applicant
Mr. Lesetja Robert Ledwaba Second Applicant
Mr. Madimetja Joseph Lamola Third Applicant
Mr. Hasani Wiseman Hlungwane Fourth Applicant
Mr. Sello Abram Raphuti Fifth Applicant
Mr. Schalk Johannes v/d Merwe Sixth Applicant
And
lntelek Training and Consultation CC First Respondent
Skystaff (Pty) Ltd Second Respondent
Master of the High Court Court, Pretoria Third Respondent
DRAFT ORDER
After having perused the documents filed of record and having had counsel for the
Applicants,
ITS IS ORDERED THAT:-
(1) The application for rescission of the sequestration order dated the 15 th day of
October 2021 is granted;
(2) The sequestration order dated the 15 th day of October 2021 is hereby rescinded
and set aside;
(3) The affairs of Skysstaff (Pty) Ltd, Second Respondent in this matter is hereby
removed from the office of the Master of the High Court, Gauteng, Pretoria, and placed
back into the hands of the Board of Directors of the Second of the Second Respondent;
(4) Alternatively, the affairs of the Second Respondent is hereby placed into the
directorship and authorship of Global Airways Group, a holding company.
Signed:
Registrar: Judge: