IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between:

JUDGMENT

I am not going to give full reasons for the judgment. I am asked to deal with two matters that are both under the same case number 9257/2011. Firstly, there is an application for a final winding up order of the fourth respondent and then there is an application by the applicant brought under a separate notice of motion, but under the same case number, for the rule to be discharged to a provisional order that was issued on 11 May this year to be discharged.

It transpired afterwards that this director, Ms Aneen Estelle Mosca, was in fact sequestrated some few months before that, where the same attorney who moved the liquidation application, was also the attorney who appeared for the same applicant in the sequestration applications. In that application. For example, there were indications of debts that related to her in her personal capacity, but also the property that was the only asset of this company, was there stated to be the property of Ms Mosca. None of these facts were disclosed to the court.

The only matter that follow from that is the intervention of Mr Venter in taking the application further and the costs that arise from that, it is clear from all the facts available to me, that had Mr Nel and Ms Mosca, to a certain extent, have played open cards and have placed all the facts, also as to how the debt arose and to whom the indebtedness was, all of this would not have been necessary. They conducted them in such a way, in my view, that it would be appropriate not to have Mr Venter, the second applicant, if I can call him that, to be out of pocket in any way. Hence, I will order that all costs that were incurred in this matter, in as far as it relates to Mr Venter's engagement therein, be paid by the applicant, Mr Nel, on an attorney and client scale. That is the order of the court.

ERASMUS J