1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case no.: CT02591ADJ2026
In the matter between:
MOEGAMAT NUR LAWRENCE Applicant
and
HEMKUMAR MAHARAJ First Respondent
SHAHANA MAHARAJ Second Respondent
SAGITTARIUS PRINTWORKS (Pty) Ltd
IN LIQUIDATION Third Respondent
(2015/259248/07)
SAGRPRINT Fourth Respondent
(K2022297395)
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY COMMISSION Fifth Respondent
2
Presiding member:
Date of decision:
Nomagcisa Cawe
30 August 2026
DECISION (Reasons and Order)
1. This is an application brought on Form CTR 142 in terms of regulation 142 of the
Companies Regulations of 2011 (“the Regulations ”), in which the Applicant, a
former employee of the Third Respondent, seeks an extensive range of remedies
relating to the First and Second Respondents’ handling the termination of his
employment contract as well as various internal affairs of the Third Respondent.
The relief sought relates, further, to the First and Second Respondents’ handling
of the Third Respondents’ finances, management, decision-making processes,
and the liquidation of the Third Respondent.
2. The Applicant, Mr. Moegamat Nur Lawrence ( “Lawrence”) is a former employee
of the Third Respondent, which is a duly incorporated company, with registration
number: 2015/259248/07, according to the company laws of South Africa.
BACKGROUND
3. Briefly, the Applicant states that he was employed by the Third Respondent,
Sagittarius Printworks, as a print worker. Following a dispute he was dismissed.
He referred the matter of his dismissal to the Commission for Conciliation
Mediation and Arbitration (“CCMA”). The Respondents did not attend the CCMA
3
arbitration process and a default award in his favour was issued on 11 November
2021 to the tune of R36 972 89.
4. Applicant alleges that shortly after the CCMA award was granted, the First and
Second Respondents took steps to restructure the business affairs of the Third
Respondent, by registering the Fourth Respondent in a manner designed to
avoid paying creditors, including himself. This, according to him, was done in a
deliberate, multi-layered scheme to defraud creditors and to defeat the purpose
of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“the Act/ the Companies Act”).
5. As a result of the aforesaid, Applicant seeks the C ompanies Tribunal ( the
Tribunal”) to grant him the following order:-
5.1 Declaring the First and Second Respondents delinquent directors in
terms of Section 162 of the Act.
5.2 Declaring that First and Second Respondents engaged in fraudulent
trading and are personally liable , jointly and severally, for the debts of
the Third Respondent , and also what he is owed according to the
CCMA award. In support of this prayer, Applicant relies on Sections
22(1) and 77(3)(b) of the Act.
(Section 22 deals with reckless trading and Section 77(3)(b) deals
with the liability of directors and prescribed officers for acquiescence
in the carrying on of the company’s business despite knowing that it
4
was being conducted in a manner prohibited by section 22(1). (my own
addition and emphasis)
5.3 Declaring that the name SAGRPRINT (Fourth Respondent )
contravenes the Act and was registered fraudulently.
5.4 Directing the First and Second Respondents to take all the necessary
steps, including completing the UI19 form , to facilitate Applicant’s claim
for UIF benefits.
5.5 Referring the present matter to the National Prosecuting authority, the
South African Revenue Services and the Hawks for criminal
investigation.
5.6 A costs order against the Respondents.
JURIDICTION
6. The Tribunal is a creature of statute and therefore must raise and consider the
question of jurisdiction mero motu. The Tribunal is not a court of inherent
jurisdiction. It is a statutory body established in terms of section 193 of the Act.
The powers and functions of the Tribunal are limited to those expressly set out in
the Companies Act, or assigned to it in terms of any other legislation listed in
Schedule 4 to the Act.
7. The scope of the Tribunal’s general mandate is delineated in section 195(1) of
the Act, which provides that the Tribunal “ may adjudicate in relation to any
application that may be made to it in terms of this Act, and may make any
appropriate order provided for in this Act in respect of such an application” . The
Tribunal may also perform any function “assigned to it” by the Act or by a law
5
listed in Schedule 4. Outside of those narrow categories, the Tribunal has no
jurisdiction.
8. The relief sought is directed at the Respondent’s internal workings, its financial
management and obligations to creditors and its company records. Almost all the
prayers contained in paragraph 5 of this order, except the director’s removal, fall
without the ambit of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
9. Applicants have failed to prove the delinquency of the First and Second
Respondents that would have justified their removal as directors of the Third
Respondent. Moreover, the Third Respondent was liquidated in 2022 . This
means there is legally no Third Respondent to proceed against.
10. Even if the Applicant had provided a full factual foundation for each request -
which he has not, the Tribunal would remain bound by the limits of its jurisdiction.
No amount of factual detail can cure the absence of statutory authority.
CONCLUSION
11. The Companies Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to the specific matters
expressly provided for in the Companies Act. In respect of the issues raised
by the Applicant, the Tribunal has no inherent, implied, or residual jurisdiction.
The Tribunal may not adjudicate upon internal corporate disputes unless the
legislature has expressly vested that jurisdiction in it.
6
12. The Tribunal therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain the application or to
grant any of the remedies sought, as this would be ultra vires.
13. The Applicant is not entirely without recourse. He may, if he so wishes,
approach the High Court for redress.
ORDER
14. It is accordingly ordered that:
(a) The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
(b) There is no order as to costs against the Respondents.
Nomagcisa Cawe:
Member of the Companies Tribunal