1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no: CT/02727/ADJ/2026
In the matter between:
POLIMEDICS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant
(Registration No 2025/929400/07)
And
POLTMEDICS DENTISTRY 1
st Respondent
And
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION 2
nd Respondent
Presiding Member of the Companies Tribunal: HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Date of Decision: 20TH June 2026
DECISION and REASONS
2
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. The applicant is Polime dics (Pty) Limited, a private company duly incorporated
in accordance with the company laws of the Republic of South Africa with
Registration Number 2025/929400/07 having its registered address at 262
Klitsgras Madeira Isles, Danville, Pretoria, Gauteng 0018.
1.2. The first respondent is Polt medics Dentistry a n unincorporated business entity
owned and managed by two persons namely Lebogang Meshack Moloto and Dr
Nene Sibongile Anne Makholane trading as such at 3487 Vundla Street ,KV
Funeral Centre, Rockville, Soweto Gauteng.
1.3. The second respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
(CIPC) established by Section 185 of the Companies Act with its address at DTI
Building, Block F, Meintjies Street, Sunnyside, Pretoria.
2. THE APPLICATION
2.1. The Applicant brought this application brought in terms of Section 160 of the
Companies Act for an order as follows:
2.1.1. That the First Respondent ’s company name, Polimedics Dentistry does
not satisfy the requirements of Section 11of the Companies Act and that the
First Respondent be directed to choose a new name, as provided for in
Section 160(3)(b)(ii) of the Companies Act, and,
2.1.2. Granting alternative relief in the event that the First Respondent fails to
comply with the Order as set out in 2.1.1 within a period of sixty days, t wo
(2) months.
2.2. The Applicant has an interest in the name of the First Respondent within the
meaning of Section 160(1) of the Act to file this Application to the Companies
Tribunal. The Applicant’s interest will appear from the facts which were initiated
and documented by the Applicant in its affidavit in particular, the Applicants
registered name in the CIPC.
3. THE BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION FOR JUDGEMENT BY DEFAULT
3
3.1. On the 1st February 2025 the Applicant had an intention to form a partnership
with one of the owners of the 1 st Respondent, Mr Lebogang Meshack Moloto
however the partnership negotiations failed. The partnership negotiations
discussions ceased and unbeknown to the sole director of the applicant, Mr
Muvhango Tshedza Simeon, the first Respondents proceeded to trade under the
name of “Poltmedics ” which is confusingly similar to the applicant ’s name
without the applicants consent and knowledge.
3.2. The applicant has lodged the application to formally object to the use of name
Poltmedics Dentistry by the First Respondent. The Applicant called on the First
Respondents owners to desist to use the name of Polimedics in the social media
platforms. and to undertake to change its name to one not including Polt medics
name or any confusingly similar name.
3.3. Subsequent follow ups contacts with the First Respondents by WhatsApp
yielded no positive response or results.
3.4. The documents provided to the Tribunal consist of CTR145, CTR 142 and
affidavits deposed to by the Applicants sole director Mr Muvhango Tshedza
Simeon, the documents include a complaint addressed to the Health
Professions Council of South Africa by the applicant’s director. The Form
CTR145 in which he requests that the Tribunal adjudicate the name dispute and
grant an order by default. The Applicant claims that he served both applications
by email, however no email address was reflected on the documents supplied to
the Tribunal addressed to the respondents except email addresses of the Health
Professions Council of South Africa, the applicant does not explain the origin of
the email used to notify the respondents of the applicants to the Tribunal.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION 142
4.1. In terms of regulation 142(1) of the Regulations, a person may apply to the
Companies Tribunal for an order in respect of any matter contemplated in the
Companies Tribunal for an order in respect of any matter contemplated in the
Act or the Regulations by completing and filing with the Companies Tribunal ’s
recording officer:
4.1.1. An application Form CTR 142, and
4
4.1.2. A supporting affidavit settling out the facts on which the application is
based
4.2. In terms of regulation 142(2) the applicant must serve a copy of the application
and affidavit on each respondent named in the application, within 5 business
days after filing it:
(a) Indicate the basis of the application, stating the section of the Act or the
Regulations in terms of which the application is made and
(b) Depending on the context –(i)..:(ii) ..:or
(c) Indicate the order sought: and
(d) State the names and address of each person in respect of whom an order
is sought’”
5. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATION 153
5.1. In terms of Regulation 153(1) If a person served with an initiating document has
not filed a response within the prescribed period, the initiating party may apply to
have the order, as applied for, issued against that person by the Tribunal.
5.2. On application in terms of sub- regulation (1), “The Tribunal may raise an
appropriate order – (a) …( b) if satisfied that the notice or application was
adequately served.”
5.3. An important requirement of the Tribunal is that the set administrative procedure
must be complied with in order to bring an application to the Tribunal. More
importantly when a default order is sought in terms of Regulation 153 .The
Tribunal ought not to grant such an order without satisfying itself that the
applicant has done whatever is necessary with written proof to the Tribunal that
effort was done to ensure that the respondent or person who will be affected by
such an order w as notified, failure of the affected person or respondent to
respond is due to their own doing and that the procedure, as stipulated by the
regulations has been complied with.
5.4. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has followed the procedure in terms of
service of the application. Moreover, the e- mail the Applicant allegedly u sed
does not appear anywhere in the documents submitted, nor do any dates of
5
such emails where provided alternatively an explanation of what type of entity is
the first respondent the information had to be verified by the applicant to the
satisfaction of the Tribunal.
6. ORDER
6.1. In light of the circumstances, the application is dismissed.
6.2. No order is made on the merits of this application, the applicant is directed, if he
so wish es, to submit an application de novo, having corr ected the procedural
deficiencies in respect of regulation 153 of the Companies Act 71of 2008.
6.3. No order as to costs.
HLALELENI KATHLEEN DLEPU
Member of the Companies Tribunal