The three applicants in this urgent chamber application applied for a provisional order the terms of the interim relief of which reads as follows- Interim Relief.
That pending the confirmation or discharge of this Provisional Order the applicants are granted the following relief:
1) That first to third respondents is (sic) directed to stop advertising for sale of any stands on a certain piece of land in Hartely called Swallowfield of Johannesburg measuring 127,6238 hectares held under deed of transfer number DT 5157/99.
2) The first to third respondents be directed to refrain from collecting sale proceeds of stands. More
This is an application in terms of s 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07], (hereinafter called “the Act”) for the liquidation of the first respondent on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. The applicant avers that there is a deadlock between its members and directors. In addition, it is submitted that the forth respondent is dissipating the company’s assets, as well as selling assets in its name, thereby creating obligations which the company is unable to fulfill. It has been brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who... More
This application was filed in terms of section 5(1)(b)(iii) of the Insolvency Act [Chapter 6:07] (“the Act”), for the liquidation of Greynut Investments (Pvt) Ltd (“the first respondent”) on the basis that it is just and equitable to wind it up. It was brought by the executor of the estate of the late Isaiah Mudzengi, who held 70% shares in the first respondent. The application is opposed by the fourth and fifth respondents. In her opposition, the fourth respondent states that she the Chief Executive Officer and co-director of the first respondent, and that she has a shareholding of 30%.... More
The applicant in casu seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against this Court’s Judgement which dismissed his appeal. The application for leave to appeal was opposed. The respondent argued that the applicant’s grounds of appeal do not raise any questions of law. Further, the application was resisted on the basis that the intended grounds of appeal were not concise and that they were long and rumbling. More
1 This is an application for review of the proceedings of the disciplinary authority. Those proceedings were subject of an internal appeal which appeal upheld the proceedings. More
Appellant was employed by the Respondent as its Concentrator Manager. Allegations of misconduct were levelled against him it being alleged that he had wrongfully and unlawfully made personal purchases using the company system without the requisite authority to do so. He was brought before a Disciplinary Committee which found him guilty and recommended his dismissal. An appeal to the Appeals Committee did not meet the desired results as that Committee upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee. Appellant has approached this Court for relief. More
The material background facts to the matter are as follows. The 1st Respondent on 5 May 2021. referred to Applicant a claim for unfair dismissal. This was based on allegations that he had been verbally dismissed by 2nd Respondent’s General Manager. The Applicant submitted before Applicant that he had been employed as Operations Compliance Manager. He had worked for 2nd Respondent for more than 34 years. He was due to retire in November 2020 after attaining the age of 65 years. He was however verbally terminated on 30 April 2020. Applicant was therefore claiming an unfair termination as the 2nd... More
