Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]   I have been seized with a portion of the dispute which relates to Steinhoff International Holdings NV (“Steinhoff”) and one of its potential creditors, Lancaster 101(RF) (Pty) Ltd (“Lancaster 101”).

[2]   This matter involves an application in terms of Rule 7 of the Uniform Rules of Court, where Steinhoff challenges a resolution adopted by Lancaster 101 which purports to grant its director Mr Jayendra Naidoo (“Naidoo”) authority to institute legal proceedings against Steinhoff and its affiliates.

[3]   It is common cause, that Lancaster 101 instituted an action against Steinhoff on 17 April 2019, in which it seeks inter alia, the rescission of a share subscription agreement which Lancaster 101 concluded with Steinhoff on 23 September 2016, and in terms of which Lancaster 101 subscribed for 60 million shares in Steinhoff at a price of R 75.98 per share for the total sum of approximately R 4.5 billion. On 14 September 2019, Lancaster 101 filed an application for the same relief sought in the action, i.e. for the rescission of subscription agreement. It avers that this relief is sought on motion because Steinhoff is ostensibly unable to genuinely dispute the basis upon which Lancaster 101 is entitled to the relief sought.