Ex parte Minister of Lands; Ex parte Ventersdorp Muslim Trust (Pty) Ltd and Others

• Judge: Viljoen J
• Judgment Date: 02 June 1964
• Citation: 1964 (3) SA 469 (T)
• Hearing Date: 14 April 1964
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

F Viljoen, J.:

By deeds of transfer 10301/1945 and 10302/1945, certain two erven, namely erf 9, situated on Koekemoer and Lange Streets and erf 8 situated on Koekemoer Street in the town of Ventersdorp, respectively, were registered in the name of Ventersdorp Muslim Trust (Pty.) Ltd., a private limited liability company, which had been incorporated on 28th September, 1944.

G On 25th November, 1948, the Receiver of Revenue requested the Registrar of Companies to remove the company from the register. A notice pursuant to sec. 199 (6) of the Companies Act, 46 of 1926, as amended, was thereupon, on 29th November, 1948, served on the company at 9, Barkley Arcade, Market and Diagonal Streets, Johannesburg, the H registered office of the company. No reply was received. A further notice was served on the company on 25th May, 1949, and again there was no response. The name of the company was consequently, on 28th October, 1949, placed on a preliminary list of companies to be struck off, which list was published in Government Gazette 936 of 1949. After the expiration of three months the name of the company was struck from the register on 27th January, 1950, which fact was published in Government Gazette 56 of 1950.

Viljoen J

On 17th January, 1958, the company, in whose name the properties referred to above were still registered, was given notice, in terms of sec. 37 of the Group Areas Act, 77 of 1957, that the erven were illegally held in terms of the Act. An action was thereupon instituted A for an order setting aside the notice referred to. It is not clear from the papers before me by whom the action was instituted, but I assume that it was instituted by the second and third applicants in the second application referred to in the heading above. It is common cause that this action was not proceeded with.

B Instead of following the procedure laid down by the Group Areas Act for the sale of illegally held properties, the State, through the Minister of Lands, has now petitioned this Court for an order declaring the properties referred to as bona vacantia. This application will be referred to as application A. This application has spurred the C applicants in application B on to sudden activity. This second application is an application for an order restoring the Ventersdorp Muslim Trust (Pty.) Ltd. to the register of companies and declaring erven 8 and 9, Ventersdorp, to be the property of the Ventersdorp Muslim Trust (Pty.) Ltd., subject to the provisions of the Group Areas Act.

D Both these applications have been set down on the same roll, and for the sake of convenience I shall deal with them together. I shall deal with application B first for the reason that the success of application A for an order declaring the erven in question bona vacantia depends solely on my decision in application B. Counsel are agreed that, if the E company is not restored to the register, the bona vacantia application must succeed. Conversely, if the application for restoration succeeds, the bona vacantia application must fail.

Companies are restored to the register in terms of sec. 199 (7) of the Companies Act, 46 of 1926, as amended. The portion of that sub-section which is...