REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, 
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA

CASE NO: 2015/11797  

(1)	REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)	REVISED. 

         ……………………..		………………………...
                   DATE			        SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

STEFAN WINTERBOER							     APPLICANT

and

CX3 DEVELOPERS CC						       1ST RESPONDENT
ASTRID LAURA NEEB						      2ND RESPONDENT
CAREL ALBERT EDUARD NEEB				      3RD RESPONDENT
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED		      4TH RESPONDENT

___________________________________________________________________ 

J U D G M E N T
___________________________________________________________________ 

WRIGHT  J

1.	The applicant is a businessman. He is a one third interest holder in the 1st respondent close corporation. The second and third respondents are the other interest holders. The fourth respondent bank does not oppose any relief sought. The applicant says that he was defrauded by the second and third respondents, they having tricked him into relinquishing his signing powers over the 1st respondent’s bank account with the intention of using the 1st respondent’s funds for their own benefit and to the prejudice of creditors of the 1st respondent. His signing powers were restored at some point by an agreed court order. The second and third respondents deny the allegations of fraud. It is not necessary for me to find fraud.  What is before me is only the question of whether or not the 1st respondent should be wound up.  It cannot be said that the applicant is the cause of the impasse.
2.	The applicant has shown beyond any doubt that the members of the first respondent are in deadlock. They agree on almost nothing, they have not been able to meet, the allegations and counter-allegations are very serious and are unresolvable between them. The first respondent has creditors who are prejudiced or may be prejudiced by this state of affairs. The first respondent is in substance a partnership in collapse.  There is mistrust, tension and deadlock.  Compare Sader v Warda Butchery 2008 JDR 0387 (N) at paragraph 11.  It matters not that the second and third respondents are in agreement with each other.  What matters is that there are two opposing sides who can’t get along to the extent indicated above.

3.	ORDER
The first respondent close corporation is wound up.

GC WRIGHT  J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA

On behalf of the Applicant:			Adv M Coetsee	 
Instructed by:				ML Schoeman Attorneys	
						012 562 9900
On behalf of the Respondent:                 Adv H Van Zyl
Instructed by:				De Bryun & De Kock Inc	
						086 133 2335
Date of Hearing: 				28 July 2015	
Date of Judgment:				28 July 2015