About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAKZPHC 70
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Great Lakes Consultancy (Pty) Ltd v Schoonspruit Development (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/131798) [2026] ZAKZPHC 70 (18 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2025-131798
In
the matter between:
GREAT
LAKES CONSULTANCY (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
Versus
SCHOONSPRUIT
DEVELOPMENT (PTY) LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
EXEOKHOKELA
CIVIL ENGINEERING
CONSTRUCTION
(PTY) LTD
SECOND RESPONDENT
AGRI
INDUSTRIA (PTY) LTD
THIRD RESPONDENT
BUSINESS
PARTNERS
FOURTH RESPONDENT
In
re:
CASE NUMBER: 2025-063300
KWAZULU-NATAL
HIGH COURT
BUSINESS
PARTNERS LIMITED
APPLICANT
Versus
AGRI
INDUSTRIA (PTY) LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
ORDER
The
following order is made:
1.
First and Third Respondents are placed under supervision and business
rescue proceedings be commenced in terms of
section 131
(1) of the
Companies Act 71 of 2008
, for Schoonspruit Development (Pty) Limited
and Agri Industria (Pty) Limited.
2.
Dean Du Toit and Kurt Robert Knoop be appointed as business rescue
practitioners to conduct the business of the companies
with all
powers and duties entrusted to them in terms of the
Companies Act 71
of 2008
.
3.
That notice of this order be given in the following manner.
3.1 By notifying effected
parties of the companies within 5 days of this order having been
granted by way of electronic mail.
3.2 By publication of this order
in one publication of Die Beeld and Cape Times within ten (10) days
of this order being granted.
4.
That the costs of this application be paid by Fourth Respondent on
scale C and to include the costs of two counsel where
so employed.
5.
That the application by Fourth Respondent for the provisional
liquidation of Third Respondent Agri Industria (Pty) limited
under
case 2025/063300 in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court is adjourned sine
die.
JUDGMENT
P
C BEZUIDENHOUT J
:
[1]
There are two applications set down for hearing namely case number
2025-131798 Great Lakes Consultancy (Pty) Ltd v Schoonspruit
Development (Pty) Ltd & 3 others and Business Partners Limited v
Agri Industria (Pty) Ltd under case number 2025-063300.
The
application by Great Lakes Consultancy (Pty) Ltd is an application to
place Schoonspruit Development (Pty) Ltd (Schoonspruit)
First
Respondent and Agri Industria (Pty) Ltd (Agri Industria), Third
Respondent under the supervision of a business rescue practitioner
and that business rescue proceedings be commenced in respect of these
two companies in terms of
section 131
of the
Companies Act 71 of
2008
. Fourth Respondent opposed the application.
[2]
It was agreed at the commencement of the hearing that the application
of Great Lakes v Schoonspruit will be heard first.
The second
is an application for the provisional liquidation of Agri Industria.
After the matter of Great Lakes v Schoonspruit
is finalised it will
be decided what would be the course to follow in respect of the
application by Business Partners.
[3]
For convenience the parties are to be referred to by their names and
not as Applicant and Respondents.
[4]
Great Lakes is the major shareholder in Schoonspruit and Agri
Industria. Schoonspruit and Agri Industria are both
property
development companies whose business is to acquire land and
developing such land into erven after the necessary permission
has
been granted. They acquired land in the Malmesbury district to
develop the land, instal services, subdivisions etc for
the
properties to be sold to various individuals and companies.
Schoonspruit has twenty-nine properties which it still expects
to
sell and generate an income from of approximately R88 000 000.00.
Agri Industria also owns a vast portfolio
of land some already
subdivided into individual properties and is expecting an income of
between R400 000 000.00 and
R500 000 000.00 from
the sale thereof.
[5]
During January 2020 to early February 2020 Business Partners, Fourth
Respondent, provided three loans to Schoonspruit
and Agri Industria
totalling R23 67 9 624.00. Various properties were sold by
Schoonspruit and Agri Industria which
will be referred to later on.
[6]
On 4 February 2022 the Swartland Municipality approved the rezoning
of the properties of Agri Industria. The approval
of the
subdivision of agricultural land was granted by the Department of
Agriculture and Land Reform and Rural Development in 2022.
[7]
Business Partners is the single largest creditor of Schoonspruit and
Agri Industria with a claim of R15 576 618.00.
The
total debt of Schoonspruit and Agri Industria is in the sum of
R42 416 721.70. The amount of R10 750 000.00
in respect of Schoonspruit’s which excludes a suretyship
towards Business Partners of R15 000 000.00. Agri
Industria’s total debt is the amount of R31 000 000.00
which includes the Business Partner’s loan amount
of
approximately R15 000 000.00.
[8]
The value of the properties of Schoonspruit and Agri Industria as
valued by a sworn valuer is the sum of R478 940 000.00
and
R96 290 700.00 respectively.
[9]
The application by Great Lakes for business rescue was brought on 5
August 2025. At approximately 15H03 the bundle
was
electronically served on all affected parties of Schoonspruit and
Agri Industria. It was also thereafter served on the
companies
and intellectual property commission. It was then served on the
South African Revenue Services on the same date
at approximately
19H55 Documentation for submitting the application to court
online at the Western Cape High Court was uploaded
accordingly.
As the court online system did not process the documents it was done
again on the morning of on 6 August 2025.
The documentation for
the KwaZulu-Natal High Court was submitted and uploaded on 5 August
2025 at 16H29.
[10]
Exeo Khokela Civil Engineering (Second Respondent) brought an
application in the Western Cape High Court for the provisional
liquidation of Schoonspruit. Prior to the commencement of the
hearing in the Cape Town High Court of the application by Exeo
Khokela Civil Engineering the KwaZulu-Natal High Court allocated a
case number to the business rescue application which was issued
on
court online by Great Lakes Oral argument was heard in the
Western Cape High Court on 6 August 2025 and an order was granted
later provisionally liquidating Schoonspruit. It was held in
the judgment that the business rescue applications did not prevent
the court from issuing a provisional winding up order.
[11]
In the case of Blue Star Holdings (Pty) Ltd v West Coast Oyster
Growers CC
2013 (6) SA 540
(WCC) it was held that in terms of
section
131(6)
a business rescue application suspended liquidation
proceedings and that no provisional liquidation order can be granted
until
the court had adjudicated on the business rescue application.
This was also followed in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court.
[12]
It was held in Richter v Absa Bank Ltd
2015 (5) SA 57
(SCA) that
business rescue can be granted even after a final order of
liquidation had been granted. It was however no disputed
at the
hearing that the business rescue application could be brought even
though the provisional liquidation of Schoonspruit had
been granted
and therefore it is not necessary to pursue this aspect any further.
[13]
Before Schoonspruit was provisionally liquidated there were
transactions in progress worth approximately R28 000 000.00
which was more than enough to pay the debts of Schoonspruit amounting
to about R10 000 000.00 and also the suretyship
in respect
of Business Partners in the sum of about R15 000 000.00.
[14]
In terms of section 131(4) of the 2008
Companies Act a
Court to which
an affected person makes an application for business rescue may:
(a) Make an order placing the
company under supervision and commencing business rescue proceedings
if a court is satisfied
that:
(i) The company is financially
distressed and
(ii) There is a reasonable prospect
for rescuing the company.
Section 128(1)(f)
defines financially
distressed as:
“
It appears to be reasonably
unlikely that the company would be able to pay off all its debts as
they become due and payable within
the immediate ensuing six
months.”
[15]
It was held in the matter of Oakdene Square Properties (Pty) Ltd and
Others v Farm Botha’s fontein (Kyalami) (Pty)
Ltd and Others
2013(4) SA (SA) 539 (SCA) at paragraph 29 that there must be a
reasonable prospect with the emphasis on reasonable
which means that
it must be a prospect based on reasonable grounds.
[16]
It was submitted on behalf of Great Lakes that in terms of section
131 (4) of the 2008
Companies Act it
had to be shown by an effected
person who makes an application for business rescue that there is a
reasonable prospect for rescuing
the company and that it must be
financially distressed. There must therefore be a reasonable prospect
that the company can be rescued
and placed under supervision. I was
referred to the decision in Oakdene Square Properties (Pty) Ltd &
Others v Farm Bothas
fontein (Kyatami) & Others
2013 (4) SA 539
(SAC) at para 29 where it was held that it requires more than a mere
prima facie case or an arguable possibility. Of even a greater
significance is that it must be a reasonable prospect with the
emphasis on reasonable which means that it must be a prospect based
on reasonable grounds a mere speculative suggestion is not enough. I
was also referred to the decision of Cloete Murray and another
NNO v
FirstRand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank
2015 (3) SA 438
(SCA) at para 14
where it states,
“
It is generally accepted that a
moratorium on legal proceedings against a company under business
rescue is of cardinal importance
since it provides a crucial
breathing space or a period of respite to enable the company to
restructure its affairs. This allows
a practitioner, in conjunction
with creditors and other affected parties, to formalise their
business rescue plan designed to achieve
the purpose of the process.”
[17]
It was submitted that in Oakdene it was decided that a business
recuse application can succeed either for the company
to continue in
existence on a solvent basis or if not possible to continue in
existence will results in a better return for the
companies creditors
or shareholders than what would result from the immediate liquidation
of the company.
[18]
It was submitted that Business Partners continued stating in their
answering affidavit that the application was merely
to delay the
winding up application and that it was for their own benefit and to
the disadvantage of the insolvent companies’
creditors. It was
submitted that the value of Agri Industria of R478 000 000.00
was not disputed. It was further submitted
that Ms August in her
answering affidavit failed to disclose that although Business
Partners brought a winding up application and
while a business rescue
application is pending Business Partners tried to transfer 3
properties into the name of Vasar Properties
from Schoonspruit. Those
are properties that are serviced subdivided and can be transferred.
[19]
It was submitted that the demand for the properties was there, but
the sale had to be finalised and that a business rescue
practitioner
would be in the position to do the necessary to ensure that the sales
are brought to conclusion. This would generate
a large sum of money
which even after Business Partners are paid would provide a large sum
for future development of the land in
question. It was therefore
submitted that the applicant had made out a case for the two
companies to be placed under supervision
and that the business rescue
proceedings be commenced in terms of the
Companies Act.
[20
]
Although the liquidation proceedings are suspended by the business
rescue application such an order was granted. This however
does not
preclude the business rescue application which is before court as it
was held in Richter v ABSA Bank Limited
2025 (5) SA 57
(SCA) that a
business rescue application can be brought even after a final order
of liquidation had been granted. There is therefore
no legal
impediment in the bringing of this application. Business
Partners also did not submit anything to the contrary.
Much was
said in argument by Business Partners that this was to prevent the
liquidation and that it was an abuse of the court
process. However,
as I already mentioned although it may have been to prevent
liquidation the applicant was entitled to bring such
an application
and therefore the application must be considered.
[21]
Great Lakes Consultancy (Applicant) is the majority shareholder in
both Schoonspruit and Agri Industria. They are both
property
development companies whose business is the acquisition of land the
subdivision thereof installing services and thereafter
the sale of
the erven and in such a way earn a profit and to conduct their
businesses. The land which was purchased is in the town
of Malmesbury
in the Western Cape and was purchased after 2015 as it was foreseen
that any expansion in the area of Cape town would
have to be in the
Region of Malmesbury as there was no such opportunity in the Paarl,
Stellenbosch, and Somerset West area. As
a result, thereof vast
portions of land in the Municipal area of Malmesbury was purchased.
[22]
Approval for various subdivisions from agricultural land to
non-agricultural use was granted by the Department of Agriculture
and
Land Reform and Rural Development in 2022. In the process certain
loans were received from Business Partners and at the moment
the
single largest creditor of Schoonspruit and Agri Industria is
Business Partners in the sum of R15 576 618, 14. The
total
debt of Schoonspruit is R10 750 178.70 plus the suretyship in
respect of the amount owing to Business Partners. The
total debt of
Agri Industria is R31 666 543.00 which includes the
R15 557 618.14 owed to Business Partners.
[23]
The value of the said land by a registered valuator instructed by
Great Lakes valued the land in respect of Agri Industria
in the
amount of R478 940 000.00 and in respect of Schoonspruit of
R96 290 700.00. There is a valuation by
Fourth Respondent
for a much lesser amount which is about R66 000 000.00.
This valuation is not by a registered
valuator and does not appear
that the person who valuated the property has the necessary
qualifications to do such a valuation.
[24]
At the commencement of the argument on behalf of Great Lakes a
document which was headed TimeLine was handed in and was
used in
argument. From this document it appears that Schoonspruit was
registered on 20 November 2015 and Agri Industria on the
7 December
2016. On 21 August 2017 certain rezoning and subdivisions were
granted to Schoonspruit by the Swartland Municipality.
From April
2018 to January 2019 approximately ten properties were sold by
Schoonspruit and transferred to the various owners in
a total amount
of R23 400 305.00. In September 2019 a further property was
sold and it further appears that various other
properties were
transferred to buyers in the period of 2019 to 2020. It is not
necessary to deal with each of the properties
as it is not an issue
in this application.
[25]
On the 28 January 2020 three loan agreements were concluded with
Business Partners in the sum of R26 700 000.00.
On 21
January 2021 a payment of R5 900.000.00 was made to Business
Partners. During 2021 various other properties approximately
eight of
them were sold and transferred. This amounted to approximately
R10 924 540.00. During 2022 there were further
sales and
transfers of another approximately four properties. During March, May
and June further properties were sold whereafter
an amount of
R11 177 257.71 was paid to Business Partners. During the
period May to October 2024 there were further deeds
of sale signed
and transfer of properties to the value of about R25 000 000.00.
Various reservation agreements
were also signed. On 1 February 2025
Business Partners were granted Power of Attorney to pursue sales. On
24 March 2025 three offers
to purchase was received from Vaser
Properties via Mr Lang the attorney of Business Partners in a total
amount of R9 450 000.00.
There was also an offer by Mr Lang
on behalf of Coastal Capital to purchase all the properties for
R66 000 000.00
which was rejected by the shareholders.
[26]
During May 2025 various reservation agreements were concluded for
various properties totalling approximately R45 000 000.00.
During May 2025 the first meeting of the shareholders to discuss
business rescue was held. On 1 July 2025 a second meeting of the
shareholders was held. On 2 July 2025 a loan on various
conditions was negotiated with De Kleinevalleij 1581 (Pty) Limited
in
the sum of R32 500 000.00. On 5 August 2025 the business
rescue founding affidavit was signed by Carol Petoors and
the
documents were uploaded in both Pietermaritzburg and Cape Town as set
out above.
[27]
During August 2025 further reservation agreements were concluded for
about R6 000 000.00. On 1 October 2025
there was an attempt
by Business Partners and Mr Lang to have three erven transferred. On
21 October 2025 Schoonspruit was provisionally
liquidated in the
Western Cape High Court Cape Town, During March 2026 offers to
purchase Agri Industria land was received and
an agreement of sale
with Agri Industria were concluded. Further supplementary
affidavits were filed in respect of this matter
by Ms Petoors.
[28]
It was submitted that from the timeline which I have summarised above
it is apparent that various properties have been
sold over the years
and that there is presently a demand for properties as appears from
the offers which have been made and also
from the reservation
agreements which have been concluded. It was submitted that there was
indeed an appetite for the said properties
and that these properties
if sold would ensure that an amount far exceeding that which is owed
to Business Partners is obtained
which would then provide the
necessary working capital to Schoonspruit and Agri Industria to
continue with the developments and
the installations of
infrastructure required. There would accordingly be more than
enough capital for the companies to continue
in business.
[29]
As already mentioned, there is a vast difference in the valuations of
the properties between that which is contended
by Great Lakes
Consultancy and Business Partners. However, even if one considers the
valuation which is contended by Business Partners
which as I have
stated is not from a sworn valuer, there is still after Business
Partners is paid in full a large amount of approximately
R50 000 000.00 which will be available from the sale of the
land.
[30]
It was submitted on behalf of Great Lakes Consultancy that the
provisional winding up order that was granted by the Western
Cape
High Court effected Schoonspruit as the sales which had been
concluded for R12 850 000.00 and R21 000 000.00
were at risk as they could not proceed due to the provisional
liquidation.
[31]
It was submitted that Schoonspruit has properties which would
generate an income of R 88 165 000.00 which consists
of
urban land which has to be subdivided, some which have already been
subdivided in respect of which reservation agreements and
offers to
purchase have been made. Land that has been subdivided have not
yet been serviced. The costs to do the necessary
would amount
to about R 6.6 million rand. This would be financed from the pending
sales which have been referred to. There would
accordingly be more
than enough available to pay the debt of Schoonspruit as well as the
Suretyship to Business Partners and for
development purposes. If a
business rescue practitioner is appointed it will allow him/her to
take care of these transactions that
are in progress and have been
concluded and to bring them to perfection.
[32]
In respect of Agri Industria there is land which is zoned industrial
and has not yet been serviced but is of value.
There are
also various other stands which are zoned either for residential ,for
hotel, motor retailers etc. These properties are
valued by Rooderland
Property Consultants and Valuers at approximately R 478 million rand.
Once again if a business rescue practitioner
is appointed these
transactions that are in progress can be brought to perfection. The
electricity to the properties will happen
in 2027 and a large
transformer has already been installed and it is merely the rest of
the infrastructure that has to be completed
by Eskom. Once again from
the offers even if that of Mr Lang is accepted by the business
rescue practitioner Agri Industria
will be in a position to pay off
all its debts including the suretyship to Business Partners and there
will still be sufficient
for it to continue operating and developing
the other remaining land. It would thus be able to continue
with its business.
[33]
It was submitted on behalf of Business Partners (Fourth Respondent)
that there is no prospect that business rescue would
assist and that
it was an attempt to have an informal winding up by disposing of
Schoonspruit immovable properties to satisfy the
debt of the company.
It was further submitted that it is contended that there are a series
of reservation agreements, expressions
of letters to purchase
Schoonspruit Property. However, none of these sales would be viable
in the short or medium term. Schoonspruit
has failed to demonstrate
that it is in a position to comply with the intended sales of the
property. It was further contended
that the loan which was contended
would be received from De Kleinevalleij would not automatically be
made to Agri Industria should
it be placed in business rescue. It is
contended that it is an abuse of the process that there is no real
prospect of rescuing
the insolvent companies. It was further
submitted that it was an attempt to avoid liquidation although there
is no real prospect
of achieving a higher return for either the
creditors or members of the insolvent companies.
[35]
It is not in dispute that the companies are in financial distress,
and the question was therefore if there is a reasonable
prospect of
rescuing the companies. I was referred to the case of Oakdene once
again where it was held that it must establish reasonable
grounds.
In accordance with the rules of motion proceedings which generally
speaking a case must be made out in its founding
affidavit. It was
submitted that no case was made out for the preference of business
rescue. It was further submitted that
the values of the
properties are irrelevant whether the business rescue should be
ordered or not.
[36]
Mr Wallis appearing on behalf of Business Partners submitted that the
decision in Oakdene as well as the decision in
this division in the
matter of the Trustees of the Inkwazi Trust and another versus Skema
Holdings & Others (Pty) Ltd (D3822/2025)
as well as the judgment
in A1 Capital (Pty) Ltd v Urban Life Investment Holdings (Pty)
Limited & Others 2026-120753 (KZN) supported
the submission that
business rescue should be refused in this case. It was submitted that
the cases were similar to that in the
present matter and should
therefore be followed.
[37]
I have considered the three cases referred to above and, in my view,
the facts in those cases are not the same as in
the present matter
and that they are therefore distinguishable. In the case of Oakdene
besides various difficulties of leases etc
it concerned one property
which was to be sold and then would have allowed the other property
to be retained. In the case of A1
Capital all the properties intended
to be acquired by the first respondent (therein) from the
property-owning companies were bonded
to Nedbank as security for the
loans of the company. In the A1 case as appears in paragraph 140 the
Gribritz plan for business
rescue (proposed in that case) requires
the immovable property to be offered by the first respondent at 75%
of their true value
and this would be unlikely to fully discharge all
the amounts owing to Nedbank. In Skema Holdings the actual business
had been
transferred out of Skema Holdings and was no longer
conducted by it. Further many of the properties which were relied
upon by the
applicants was owned by subsidiaries’ and was
subject to mortgage bonds. It did not explain how these properties
could lawfully
and practically be brought within the control of Skema
Holdings.
[38]
These factors in my view distinguish the present matter on the facts
from the facts of those cases. The land in question
in the present
matter is owned by Schoonspruit and Agri Industria and this is not
disputed. It further appears on the papers that
there are properties
which can be sold at this stage. There are also properties which
could be developed and which would bring
in a substantial income. It
is therefore not the position as in the cases referred to above where
it concerned not a property development
company which owns properties
that are developed as in the present matter. In the present matter
even if one considers the very
low and which is challenged valuation
of the properties by Business Partners, then if certain properties
are sold for which there
are deeds of sale signed and also for which
interest is being shown it would create an income which would allow
all the debt to
be paid and further development of the properties.
[39]
It also is apparent from the supplementary affidavit filed by Ms
Petoors and from photos attached thereto that indeed
the transformers
and substation had been installed which is all indicative that indeed
progress is being made to ensure that the
necessary infrastructure is
installed. If a business rescue practitioner negotiates with various
other purchases which have shown
interest and such sales can be
concluded which in my view is a real probability it can indeed settle
the debt of both Schoonspruit
and Agri Industria and allow sufficient
capital for the further development of the vast pieces of land which
is owned by them,
which is worth millions of rand and is
unencumbered. Also, a factor which needs to be considered is
that due to the provisional
liquidation of Schoonspruit it stopped
the sales of the properties for which there were interests at the
time. If business rescue
is approved and the business rescue
practitioner can bring those offers to finalisation it would indeed
create an income which
would not only pay all the debt but would
enable the two companies to continue with their business of
developing the land, installing
the necessary infrastructure, etc
which is required.
[40]
The amount of the debt which is owed to Business Partners is very
small in relation to the total value of the land which
is owned by
Schoonspruit and Agri Industria. It is also noteworthy that Exeo
Khokela Civil Engineering Construction (Pty) Ltd (Second
Respondent herein) who sought the provisional liquidation of
Schoonspruit in the Western Cape Division does not oppose this
business
rescue application.
[41]
Besides the sales completed and the interest which has been shown in
the properties although some may only be reservation
agreements at
this stage indicates that there is interest in the said properties
and that there are individuals and companies that
are willing to
purchase these properties. Income can therefore be obtained
from concluding such sales. In my view, it must
be borne in mind that
in the present case it is not the sale of certain property for the
company to be able to retain another property.
It is sales to create
income to further develop the land which is paid for which it owns
for which there is an interest.
In that way it can continue
with its business which is the developing of properties, the
subdivision of which some have been approved
and to create an income
therefrom. It is therefore a situation where such would enable
Schoonspruit and Agri Industria to continue
with the business which
they conduct.
[41]
As held in Cloete Murray and Another referred to above it would
provide the crucial breathing space for the two companies
to
restructure their affairs.
[42]
It would accordingly appear to me that the requirement of a
reasonable prospect for rescuing the company has been shown.
I am
satisfied that it is not merely speculative but that indeed there is
documentation which indicates that there is a reasonable
possibility
that business rescue can restore the two companies to a position
where they can continue trading.
Accordingly
the following order is made:
1. First and Third Respondents
are placed under supervision and business rescue proceedings be
commenced in terms of
section 131
(1) of the
Companies Act 71 of
2008
, for Schoonspruit Development (Pty) Limited and Agri Industria
(Pty) Limited.
2. Dean Du Toit and Kurt Robert
Knoop be appointed as business rescue practitioners to conduct the
business of the companies
with all powers and duties entrusted to
them in terms of the
Companies Act 71 of 2008
.
3. That notice of this order be
given in the following manner
3.1 By notifying effected parties of
the companies within 5 days of this order having been granted by way
of electronic mail.
3.2 By publication of this order in
one publication of Die Beeld and Cape Times within ten (10) days of
this order being granted.
4. That the costs of this
application be paid by Fourth Respondent on scale C and to include
the costs of two counsel where
so employed.
5. That the application by
Fourth Respondent for the provisional liquidation of the third
respondent Agri Industria (Pty)
limited under case 2025/063300 in the
KwaZulu-Natal High Court is adjourned sine die.
P
BEZUIDENHOUT J.
JUDGMENT
RESERVED:
17 APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT
HANDED DOWN:
18 JUNE 2026
COUNSEL
FOR APPLICANT:
F FOUBERT SC
J D DE VRIES
Instructed
by:
Johan Victor Attorneys/Litigators
Cape Town
Tel: 021 422 0369
Email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Ref: GJV/rb/VXX
c/o Padayachee & Partners
Attorneys
Pietermaritzburg
Tel: 065 149 4569
Email:
[email protected]
Ref: RP
COUNSEL
FOR FOURTH RESPONDENT:
P WALLIS SC
L VAN DYK
Instructed by: Lang Attorneys Inc.
Bellville
Tel:
021 002 5336
Email:
[email protected]
Ref: CT Lang/AM/LL0015
c/o Stowell & Co.
Attorneys
Pietermaritzburg
Tel: 033 845 0500
Email:
[email protected]