Reunert Ltd v Panwood Properties (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: de Vos Hugo J
• Judgment Date: 21 April 1966
• Court: Griqualand-West Local Division

F de Vos Hugo, J.:

Upon the motion of the applicant company this Court on 30th March granted an order placing the respondent company under provisional judicial management and issued a rule nisi returnable on 29th April. The order and rule were duly served on the respondent company and on 4th April, George Zouves, the chairman of the board of G directors and principal shareholder and also a substantial creditor of the respondent company, gave notice of intention to anticipate the return day and to apply on 7th April for the discharge of the order and the rule and for leave to set down an application for the compulsory winding up of the respondent company. When the matter was called on the H 7th the applicant company did not oppose the discharge of the order and the rule and agreed to leave being granted to move an order for the compulsory winding up of the respondent company. The applicant's only concern was that his costs should come out of the estate of the respondent company. Zouves again asked that the applicant company should be ordered to pay his costs of opposition. As it appeared desirable that the provisional judicial management order should not be withdrawn until it is superseded by a provisional winding-up order it was agreed that judgment in this matter should be reserved until a provisional winding-up order is made. The Court

de Vos Hugo J

granted leave to Zouves to move on the 12th inst. his application for the compulsory winding up of the respondent company. On this date the A provisional judicial management order and rule were discharged and on the other application a provisional order for the compulsory winding up of the respondent company and a rule nisi returnable on 2nd June were granted. In the present matter judgment on the question of costs was reserved. There is no real dispute between the parties as to the costs as both desire that all the costs should come out of the estate, if that B is legally permissible. This is the only question with which I am now concerned.

There is no doubt that the costs of the application for the winding-up order will be costs in the liquidation but in the issue before me I am not concerned with these costs. The only question which accordingly C arises is as to the costs of the application for the provisional judicial management order and the costs of Zouves' opposition to confirmation of that order.

The question of costs in a case in which a judicial management order...