IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

Case Number: 51476/2021

REPORTABLE: NO.
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
REVISED.
2022-10-26

In the matter between:

ETIENNE JACQUES NAUDÉ N.O.	1st Applicant
LOUIS PASTEUR HOSPITAL HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD	2nd Applicant

and

LOUIS PASTEUR MEDICAL INVESTMENTS LTD	1st Respondent
DR MOHAMED ADAM	2nd Respondent
ABDOOL SATTAR AKOOB	3rd Respondent
YUSSUF SULIMAN	4th Respondent
DINGAAN DAKA	5th Respondent
ABOOHAKER JOOSUB MAHOMED	6th Respondent
KENNETHH CLIVE MARION	7th Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
COMMISSION	8th Respondent
ALBRECHT NURSING COMPANY	9th Respondent
LOUIS PASTEUR INVESTMENT HOLDINGS	10th Respondent
BOUWER CARDONA INC	11th Respondent
B BRAUN MEDICAL	12th Respondent
EASYBUILD	13th Respondent
ELECTRIC CENTRE PTA/VOLTEX	14th Respondent
FEDICS (PTY) LTD	15th Respondent
HOME HYPER CITY 	16th Respondent
ARJO HUNTLEIGH AFRICA	17th Respondent
IMAGINE THAT DESIGN AND PRINT	18th Respondent
JAB AUTOCLAVES AND SERVICES CC	19th Respondent
K CARRIM GROUP	20th Respondent
STILCO SECURITY (PTY) LTD	21st Respondent
MEDHOLD MEDICAL (PTY) LTD	22nd Respondent
MEDIKREDIT	23rd Respondent
METRO HOME CENTRE	24th Respondent
NEW MEDICA	25th Respondent
PURPLE SURGICAL SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD	26th Respondent
SAB & T AUDITORS	27th Respondent
SRYKER OSTEONICS (PTY) LTD	28th Respondent
SURGICAL INNOVATIONS	29th Respondent
TEXTILE WORLD	30th Respondent
TOPAS ELECTRONICS	31st Respondent
VALHALLA GENERAL DEALER CC	32nd Respondent
WALTONS	33rd Respondent
WESTRAND BOX	34th Respondent
SOUTH AFRICA REVENUE SERVICES	35th Respondent
HOSPERSA	 36th Respondent
DENOSA	37th Respondent
NEDBANK	 38th Respondent
EMPLOYEES OF SECOND APPLICANT	 39th Respondent
Not Represented by a Trade Union
(Annexure “X2” to the Notice of motion)
THE CREDITORS OF THE SECOND APPLICANT	40th Respondent
(Annexure “X1”to the Notice of motion)
FIRST CLINIC PROPERTIES ONE (PTY) LTD	41st Respondent
CONRAD VAN STADEN NO	42nd Respondent
HARRY KAPLAN	43rd Respondent
AAG KHAMMISA 	44th Respondent
SUJAI NAIDOO	45th Respondent

JUDGMENT

POTTERILL J

Introduction

[1]	Louis Pasteur Hospital Holdings (Pty) Ltd [LPHH] was placed in business rescue with in 2018 Mr Naudé duly appointed as business rescue practitioner by LPHH’s directors. From this flows a minefield of litigation of which this application is but one. 

[2]	The Board of LPHH in 2019 purported to appoint Mr Kaplan and Ms Khamissa as co-BRPs. Mr Kaplan passed away and the Board purportedly substituted Mr Kaplan with Mr Naidoo. On 24 October 2022, with no opposition thereto, Mr Naude’s (as BRP) application to remove Mr Kaplan and Ms Khamissa was granted with costs.

[3]	The application by Mr Naude to remove Mr Naidoo as co-BRP is belatedly opposed by Louis Pasteur Medical Investments Ltd [LPMI]. The crux of this matter is thus whether Mr Naidoo must be removed as co-BRP. Furthermore, whether a belated counter-application to remove Mr Naudé as BRP must be granted. Also relevant to the matter is whether Gothe Attorneys are authorised to act on behalf of LPMI. The first issue to consider is whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the answering affidavit and the counterapplication.

Should condonation be granted for late filing of the answering affidavit to the removal application of Mr Naidoo and the counter-application.

[4]	On the version of LPMI Gothe Attorneys was appointed on 11 August 2022 to act on its behalf. The answering affidavit was commissioned two months later and uploaded onto CaseLines on 18 October 0222 with the hearing date being 24 October 2022; three working days before the application was to be heard. My registrar was not informed of this and we received no email as a curtesy to take note of this extremely belated opposition and counter-application filed on CaseLines. CaseLines is not to be utilised to circumvent compliance with Court Rules. An attorney cannot slip a document in by uploading it on CaseLines. The court’s permission needs to be obtained. This conduct is unacceptable.

[5]	It must be remarked that Mr Smit, counsel for LPMI, already appeared at the case management meeting on 22 August 2022 and was well aware of this application to be heard on 24 October 2022. The attorney for LPMI stated that she lacked instructions at the case management meeting. Not a single reason is provided why nothing happened between the period 11 August 2022 and 18 October 2022. At the case management meeting the authority of Gothe Attorneys to act on behalf of LPMI was already placed in dispute.

[6]	 Seemingly a response Gothe Attorneys had to a “courtesy letter” that Gothe Attorneys had sent to the erstwhile attorneys delayed the filing of the necessary affidavits. A courtesy letter begged no response and any response thereto is no excuse for the delay. If Gothe Attorneys was lawfully appointed and had authority to act, they should have done so timeously. The degree of lateness of the answering affidavit and the counter-application and the lack of reasons therefor is frowned upon. Seeking an indulgence requires full disclosure of the reasons for the degree of lateness

[7]	The condonation was not pertinently raised in oral argument by counsel for Mr Naude. A court has a discretion and I exercise my discretion to grant condonation to prevent another flurry of unnecessary litigation and to put to bed these issues. LPMI is however to carry the costs for the condonation application due to no good cause shown for the time delay.

	Does Gothe Attorneys have the authority to act on behalf of LPMI?

[8]	The version of the LPMI is that on 11 August 2022 a resolution passed by the Board of directors appointed Gothe Attorneys. On 23 August 2022 LPMI’s directors passed three resolutions with the relevant resolution reading as follows:

“The Board of directors confirms and ratifies the appointment of Gothe Attorneys as attorneys of record of the Company with effect from the 11th of August 2022 and confirms that M B Adam was duly authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company on the 11th of August 2022 to sign a power of Attorney appointing Gothe Attorneys as the duly appointed and authorised attorneys of record of the Company on all legal matters and litigation.”

	This they argue is proof that Gothe Attorneys are authorised to act.

[9]	The resolution of 11 August 2022 is signed by Mariam Bibi Adam, Zaynub Adam, Tasneem Adam and Mohamed Yaseen Adam. It does not grant Mr Maine, the deponent to the answering affidavit, a power of attorney to act on behalf of the Board. This resolution is signed by only 4 of the 6 directors and Mohammed Yaseen Adam who was not a director on 18 August 2022. This resolution is signed by a Board that was not properly constituted and is a nullity.

[10]	In the answering affidavit Mr Maine relies for his authority to sign the affidavit on a round-robin resolution passed by LPMI’s directors on 23 August 2022. This resolution ostensibly ratifies the appointment of Gothe Attorneys from 11 August 2022. The relevant part of the resolution reads as follows:
“3.	The Board of Directors confirms and ratifies the appointment of Gothe Attorneys as attorneys of Record of the Company with effect from the 11th August 2022 and confirms that M B Adam was duly mandated and authorised by the Board of Directors of the Company on the 11th August 2022 to sign a power of Attorney appointing Gothe Attorneys as the duly appointed and authorised attorneys of record of the Company on all legal matters and all litigation.”

The written recordal hereof is attached to an affidavit that is signed on 17 October 2022 and the recordal of this meeting is curiously also only signed on the 17th of October 2022.

[11]	Contrary to the answering affidavit wherein it was stated that three resolutions were taken, in the answer to the Rule 35(12) a second version appears reflecting that in fact six resolutions were passed on 23 August 2022, however the only common denominator is resolution 2. Resolution 1 reads as follows:
“Any and all mandates, instructions and powers of attorney purportedly given to Geyser Attorneys by the Company or members of the Board of the Company acting in such official capacity or purporting to so act, is hereby withdrawn and terminated …”

[12]	The resolution taken on 11 August 2022 is a nullity. A nullity cannot be ratified.
The purpose of the resolution of 23 August had the intent to render that nullity effective. The insertion of resolution 1 on 23 August can only have one purpose and that is to deal with the contretemps between the two sets of attorneys for LPMI described in the answering affidavit. The only inference is that on 23 August 202 LPMI did not ratify Mrs Adam’s signature of a power of attorney to appoint Gothe Attorneys. Further doubt is cast with the answer to the Rule 7(1) notice confirming that the directors of LPMI resolver to appoint Gothe Attorneys, ignoring the power of appointment signed by Mrs Mariam Adam on 19 August 2022.

[13]	I am satisfied that LPMI’s version that they lawfully appointed Gothe Attorneys is untenable and that Gothe Attorneys have not demonstrated they have the authority to act on behalf of LPMI.

	Must Mr Naidoo be removed as co-BRP?

[14]	The above finding should end the matter. I find it prudent, to despite this finding, address the removal of Mr Naidoo as a co-BRP and the removal of Mr Naudé as BRP, so that these issues can be finalised for legal certainty and the way forward.

[15]	Mr Naidoo must be removed, if so appointed, as a co-BRP. When a BRP dies a new BRP must be appointed. Mr Kaplan’s appointment was not endorsed by the CIPC and his removal was ordered by this court. Mr Naidoo accordingly cannot step into the unlawful appointment of Mr Kaplan.

[16]	Furthermore, the appointment of a BRP is a function of the directors. But, when business rescue proceedings have been initiated the directors exercise their functions “subject to the authority of the business rescue practitioner.” With it being common cause that Mr Naudé was oblivious to the appointment of Mr Naidoo, any action taken without the approval of the BRP is void. Mr Naidoo is to be removed as BRP.

[17]	The averment that an exco of LPMI appointed Mr Naidoo takes the matter no further because in Panamo Properties (Pty) Ltd and another v Nel and others NNO 2015 (5) SA 63 (SCA) par [22] it was found that the Board of directors must appoint a BRP. An exco does not constitute a Board of directors and it is not empowered to appoint a BRP.

[18]	But, more importantly, another ratification relied on of 4 June 2021 for this exco decision, has no legal effect because on 18 June 2021 a Court order declared all the actions and decisions taken by the board of LPMI since the date of the business rescue were void and invalid. Mr Naude must be removed as the c0-BRP.

	Must the counter-application to remove Mr Naudé be granted?

[19]	In oral argument it was conceded that the issue raised in the counter-application that Mr Naudé ceased to be a BRP to LPHH because his appointment had lapsed between 16 April 2021 and 27 September 2021 was ill-conceived in lieu of the ratio expressed in the Panamo-matter that only a court on application can set aside a resolution to appoint a BRP and to terminate business rescue proceedings. This is so because an appointed BRP does not automatically lose their appointment if their licence lapses; only a court can remove a BRP.

[20]	Much reliance was then placed on Mr Naude not informing the affected parties that the CIPC had neglected to renew his licence and this fact constituted recklessness and a demonstrable breach of his fiduciary duties. His failure to disclose his disqualification led to an abandonment of his duties of care and a clear breach of trust.

[21]	This argument is to be rejected. As an attorney Mr Naude was never disqualified; he was not licensed for a period of 5 months. In terms of s138(2) the CIPC “may” licence a person. The whole tenure of the licencing in the Act read with the ratio in par 29 of the Panamo-matter of trivial non-compliances not leading to termination of the business rescue, cannot lead to an inference that Mr Naude’s non-licencing constituted reckless conduct. With no factual basis for recklessness there can be no breach of trust. 

[22] I accordingly make the following order:
[22.1] The application for condonation is granted. The first respondent is to carry the costs thereof.
[22.2]	The application to remove Mr Naidoo as business rescue practitioner is granted. The first to six respondents as the exco that appointed Mr Naidoo as well as Mr Naidoo are to pay the costs. 
[22.3]	The counter-application is dismissed with costs.

S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

CASE NO: 51476/2021

HEARD ON: 24 October 

FOR THE 1ST APPLICANT: ADV. R. PATRICK

INSTRUCTED BY: Bernard Vukic Potash & Getz

FOR THE 1st RESPONDENT: ADV. J. SMIT

INSTRUCTED BY: Gothe Attorneys

DATE OF JUDGMENT:  26 October 2022