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
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MIDDELBURG (LOCAL SEAT)
CASE NO: 2026-144540
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
SIGNATURE
DATE 01/07/2026
In the matter between:
BOKGONI BJWA MORENA HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
Registration Number 2023/123912/07 APPLICANT
and
DENNIS LEHLOGONOLO LESO
Identity Number 0[...] RESPONDENT
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
legal representatives by email. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be 01
July 2026.
JUDGMENT
2
Nsibande AJ
Introduction
[1] In this opposed urgent application, the applicant seeks an interdict and a
preservation order of some sort in respect of funds held by the respondent in the
respondent’s personal bank account as well as on a business account of a comp any
where the respondent is the sole director.
[2] The respondent is a former sole director of the applicant . He was responsible for
running the affairs of the applicant since the inception of the applicant in 2023 , and he
resigned on 8 June 2026.
[3] During the course of his sole directorship of the applicant , the respondent, during
the period between 1 June 2026 and 8 June 2026 , transferred a substantial sum of
money from the banking account of the applicant to his personal bank account and to a
business bank account of a business to which the respondent is the sole director.
[4] The applicant alleges that these funds were unlawfully paid by the respondent to
his bank account and were allocated false references.
[5] The respondent, on the other hand , alleges that, as at 8 June 2026, he was the
sole director of the applicant and therefore required no authority to transfer the funds
into the bank accounts that he transferred the funds into , particularly not from the
deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit.
[6] Subsequent to a meeting held between the parties on 8 June 20 26, the
respondent has repaid a portion of the funds transferred to his bank accounts to the
applicant. An amount of R 4 405 472.97 has been refunded to the applicant , and an
3
amount of R1 406 480.98 remains in possession of the respondent . It is this amount
that the applicant seeks to be preserved.
The Applicant’s Case
[7] The deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit submits that he is the current
sole director of the applicant, having taken full control of the affairs of the applicant at
the resignation of the respondent on 8 June 2026. That upon obtaining the bank
account statement of the applicant , he noted that there were sums of money that were
transferred mainly to two bank accounts and that these two bank accounts are linked to
the respondent as mentioned above. The applicant further submitted that these
transfers were not authori sed by the applicant . That after a meeting with the
respondent, the respondent agreed to retu rn a certain sum of money and retained the
funds in dispute, which is the subject matter of the application before this Court.
[8] The applicant conceded that , at the meeting held between the parties and the
auditors of the applicant, it was agreed that the funds retained would constitute the
salary due to the respondent, after the respondent had demanded a certain share of the
funds held by the applicant. The applicant goes further to state that the concessions
were made under duress as there was no meeting of the minds between the parties.
[9] The applicant therefore claims that the remaining funds belong to the applicant ;
as such , the court should make an o rder preserving the funds until such time that
ownership of the funds is determined at a proper platform.
[10] The reasons provided by the applicant for the preservation of the funds are that
the respondent has admitted to using the funds and to continuing to use them, as they
are his salary and he has daily needs that require the funds, in particular to se ttle his
debts as he is no longer employed.
4
[11] The applicant further contends that he has become aware that the respondent
has no registered assets in his name; as a result , he will most likely be unable to pay
any judgment obtained against him by the applicant in future . To counter such
eventuality, an anti-dissipation order which is sought in these proceedings is the only
remedy available to him.
The Respondent’s case
[12] The respondent submits that he was the sole director of the applicant from the
date of its inception until the date of resignation on 8 June 2026. He denies that the
deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit had any legal rights to the applicant during
the period of his directorship. He acknowledges that the deponent to the founding
affidavit played a role in the formulation and registration of the applicant as a company
and that he later assisted the company in obtaining contracts in the mining industry.
[13] He submits that, upon realising that the applicant had a contract with the min e,
the deponent to the founding affida vit approached him with the intention of taking over
the control of the applicant. The respondent was not happy with that and refused to
hand over the control of the applicant to the deponent to the founding affidavit. This
friction caused a strain in the relationship between the parti es. As the parties are
related, the intervention of family members was sought , and the parties met on 8 June
2026 and had an agreement.
[14] As a result of that agreement of 8 June 2026, the respondent resi gned as a
director of the applicant, and the deponent to the founding affida vit became the sole
director of the applicant.
[15] The respondent acknowledges that he transferred funds of the applicant to the
two mentioned bank accounts before resigning. He also confirms that a substantial
amount has been paid back to the applicant. He also confirms that there is a bal ance of
5
the funds that he has retained , as it was agreed that that portion of the funds shall be
regarded as his salary.
[16] As a result of the above factors, the respondent is of the view that the application
for the preservation of the funds should be dismissed.
Valuation of the submissions
[17] The following facts are common cause between the parties : that the respondent
transferred funds of the applicant to bank accounts controlled by him without
authorisation from the applicant. That the respondent has since repaid a portion of
those funds, and that there is a balance in the amount of R1 406 480.98 that is still held
in the bank accounts controlled by the respondent.
[18] The contest between the parties is who is the rightful owner of the funds retained
by the respondent. However, this court was not called upon to answer that question.
[19] In the valuation of the submissions by the parties, it becomes clear that the issue
before this Court is to determine the urgency of the matter, which the court has already
declared ur gent, and the determination of the parties ’ prima facie right to the funds
retained by the respondent.
[20] It is common cause that the respondent transferred the funds to the bank
accounts controlled by him between the period of 1 June 2026 and 8 June 2026 , and
that the respondent was not authori sed or entitled to such fun ds. As a result , the
respondent refunded the applicant a portion of the funds. The question arise s then, why
not refund the entire funds?
[21] To answer this question, the respondent submits that these funds were payment
to him for his sal ary as per the agreement. The difficulty the court has with this
submission is that the meeting relied upon by the respondent , in which the parties
6
agreed that he can retain the portion of funds held in the bank accounts controlled by
him, took place on 8 June 2026, and the funds were transferred by him prior to that
date.
[22] It is therefore clear that at the time the respondent transferred the funds to
himself and his company, there was no such agreement that the funds would be treated
as his salary.
[23] It is also clear that there is a dispute between the parties regarding what was
agreed upon at the meeting of 8 June 2026 regarding the retained funds.
Remedy
[24] This Court finds that , from the submissions made and the documents filed on
record, the applicant has been successful in proving that it has a clear right to the funds
retained by the respondent, and that the respondent ’s claim that the funds are his
salary, as such he has a clear right to the funds , is contentious under the
circumstances.
[25] This Court also find s that, under the circumstances , the applicant has no other
remedy to secure the retained funds but to obtain the interim interdict and preservation
order sought in these proceedings.
[26] This Court is therefore satisfied that the applicant has been successful in proving
the elements of an interim interdict in these proceedings.
Order
[27] In the p remise, having heard Counsel for both parties, and having pe rused the
documents filed on record, and having declared the application to be urgent and that it
7
be treated as such in terms of R ule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court, the following
order is made on the merits of the application:
1. The Respondent is ordered to, within 24 hours of receipt of this order, pay the
amount of R1 406 480.98 (One Million Four Hundred and Six Thousand Four Hundred
and Eighty Rands and Ninety -Eight Cents) into the Trust Account of Scheepers
Pretorius Incorporated pending the outcome of the action pr oceedings to be instituted
by the Applicant , to determine which party is entitled to the funds. The Applicant is to
provide the banking details to the Respondent.
2. The funds are to be kept in an interest -bearing account for the benefit of the
owner to be determined by the outcome of the action proceedings.
3. The Respondent is ordered to provide the Applicants’ attorneys, forthwith, a
physical address at which he will accept service of the action proc eedings to be
instituted.
4. The Applicant is ordered to issue and serve the action proceedings within fifteen
(15) days of this order.
5. The costs of this application will be the costs in the action proceedings.
___________________________
VM NSIBANDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MIDDELBURG
Appearances:
For the Applicant: ADV J C Bornman
Instructed by: SKV Attorneys Incorporate
Email: gmeyer@skvattorneys.co.za
8
For the Respondent: ADV L Kalashe
Instructed by: Mashifane Moswane Attorneys Inc.
Email: mashifanemoswanelaw@gmail.com