In re the matter between:. The matters between:. In the matter between:. First Respondent. Second Respondent. Third Respondent. Fourth Respondent. Fifth Respondent. Sixth Respondent. Seventh Respondent. Eighth Respondent. In the matter of:. Wepener, J:. It took no part in the proceedings. Difficulties regarding what was before me and what was not arose when by counsel submitted draft orders after the hearing. In its covering letter, Beryl Coal refers to the letter of the Deputy Judge President only referring three case numbers for hearing to me, i.
At the very least, case , as referred to in case , was also before me. It also argued that application fully without any objection that it was not before me for determination.
I consequently find that the after the fact email surprising considering all the matters that were argued before me. It does not say that the matter was not before me. All the matters that were downloaded under case number the current proceedings were before me and I shall deal with those matters which were argued and with the new application after it is heard.
In it, Inceku seeks to consolidate and application by it for the liquidation of Beryl Coal with a similar application by SG Coal. That matter is also before me and was argued fully. However, SG Coal did not appear to move for the order and it was the intervening parties and Beryl Coal who could participate in this application. But not a word was said about it save that Inceku submitted that although the application is before me for purposes of dealing with the return day of the provisional liquidation application, the application to set aside the initial order was not.
This appears to be correct and no party sought relief pursuant to section of the Companies Act. Although not submitted by Beryl Coal, Beryl Partners or Knoop, the papers indicate that Beryl Partners had launched an application in terms of section of the Companies Act for the setting aside of the liquidation order of Beryl Coal granted on 17 October in favour of SG Coal.
