Mantis Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2018 (4) SA 439 (SCA)

Mantis Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation and Others
2018 (4) SA 439 (SCA)

2018 (4) SA p439

Citation	2018 (4) SA 439 (SCA)
Case No	857/2017; [2018] ZASCA 95
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Ponnan JA, Swain JA, Dambuza JA, Davis AJA and Mothle AJA
Heard	June 1, 2018
Judgment	June 1, 2018
Counsel	A Beyleveld SC for the appellant; RG Buchanan SC for the first respondent.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Company — Winding-up — Interrogation — Subpoena to appear — Creditor G asking for subpoena of persons — Master, without proper consideration of request, issuing same — Companies Act 61 of 1973, ss 415 and 417.

Headnote : Kopnota

Mantis, [*] a creditor of a company in liquidation, asked one of the liquidators for the subpoena of certain persons and documents. The request was H unmotivated, and the statutory source of the subpoena power was not suggested. (See [3] and [7].)

The liquidator forwarded the request to the Master, who, under ss 415 and 417 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, and apparently without deliberation, called the cited persons to appear before him. (See [7] – [9].)

Eastern, [*1] those persons' employer, then obtained the review and setting-aside of I the subpoena in the High Court, and Mantis appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. (See [3] and [4].)

2018 (4) SA p440

It A dismissed the appeal: absent proper consideration of the request, the exercise of the subpoena power was invalid. (See [8] – [10].)

Cases cited

Eastern Cape Development Corporation v Master of the High Court, Port Elizabeth, and Others [2017] ZAECPEHC 23: upheld on appeal

Foot B v The Master CPD 23 July 1993: applied

Laskarides and Another v German Tyre Centre (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) and Others NNO 2010 (1) SA 390 (W): referred to.

Legislation cited

Statutes

The Companies Act 61 of 1973, ss 415 and 417: see Juta's Statutes of South Africa C 2016/17 vol 2 at 1-255 – 1-256.

Case Information

A Beyleveld SC for the appellant.

RG Buchanan SC for the first respondent.

An appeal from the Eastern Cape Local Division, Port Elizabeth (Mbenenge J). D

Order

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Judgment

Ponnan JA (Swain JA, Dambuza JA, Davis AJA and Mothle AJA E concurring):

[1] This appeal has its genesis in a suretyship issued by a company previously known as Mantis Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd, now known as No 1 Watt Street (Pty) Ltd (the company in liquidation), in favour of the first respondent, the Eastern Cape Development Corporation, in respect F of moneys loaned and advanced to the Bushman Sands Developments (Pty) Ltd (Bushman Sands).

[2] Bushman Sands was unable to repay the amount due to the first respondent and as a result it instituted action in the Eastern Cape Local Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth (the High Court), against the G former and the company in liquidation, claiming, respectively, repayment of the loan and enforcement of the suretyship undertaking in the amount of R19 357 645. Several defences were raised by the company in liquidation to the claim of the first respondent, but shortly before the commencement of the trial the appellant, Mantis Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd, as the sole shareholder of the company in liquidation, H successfully applied for...