Plus 94 Research (Pty) Limited v N.U and Others (099948/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1165 (7 November 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1165 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Plus 94 Research (Pty) Limited v N.U and Others (099948/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1165 (7 November 2025) Plus 94 Research (Pty) Limited v N.U and Others (099948/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1165 (7 November 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1165.html sino date 7 November 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 099948/23 (1)      REPORTABLE: (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: (3)      REVISED. DATE: 07/11/2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: PLUS 94 RESEARCH (PTY) LIMITED Applicant And N[...] U[...] (ID NO: 7[...]) First Respondent N[...] U[...] (ID NO. 7[...]) (In her capacity as legal guardian of the minor child, D[...] M[...] U[...]) Second Respondent T[...] M[...] R[...] K[...] (ID NO: 9[...]) Third Respondent THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Fourth Respondent THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA Fifth Respondent JUDGMENT MBONGWE, J: INTRODUCTION [1]         This matter comes before the Court on the return day of an interim order granted on 10 October 2023, pursuant to an ex parte application the Applicant had brought in the Urgent Court. THE PARTIES [2]         The Applicant is the erstwhile employer of the First Respondent. [3]         The First Respondent is sued in her personal capacity as the erstwhile employee of the Applicant and as the Third Respondent, in her capacity as the legal guardian of the minor child, D[...] M[...] U[...], in whose name the First Respondent has registered the property she had bought using the funds she unlawfully syphoned from the Applicant. [4]         The Fourth Respondent is cited herein as one of the suppliers of the Applicant who participated and acted in cahoots with the First Respondent in defrauding the Applicant. No relief is sought against the Fourth Respondent. [5]         The Fifth Respondent is cited for the reason that it is the authority that registered immovable referred to in para 3. [6]         The interim order referred to in para 1, supra, froze the First Respondent’s bank account held with Standard Bank and directed the bank to furnish the Applicant with bank statements for a specified period. The order was sought in the context of serious evidence that the First Respondent was unlawfully perpetrating fraud against the Applicant and syphoning money from it. [7]         The Applicant alleged that the Respondent had caused the payment of inflated invoices to certain suppliers, who, upon receipt of payment, transferred substantial sums into the Respondent’s personal account. The interim relief was sought to preserve the funds and facilitate investigation. [8]         Following the granting of the interim order and the receipt of the First Respondent’s bank statements, the Applicant discovered that an amount in excess of R8 million had been paid into the Respondent’s account by the Applicant’s suppliers as either kickbacks or the inflated portion of the supplier’s invoice. [9]         The Applicant thereafter instituted action proceedings against the First Respondent to recover the funds, culminating in the Applicant obtaining a summary judgment order. An order for the sequestration of the First Respondent’s estate was also obtained prior to the return date, which had been extended a few times before the matter before me on 22 April 2025 for confirmation of the interim order. [10]     The Respondent opposed the confirmation of the interim order, raising issues that appear to relate to the summary judgment already granted. These objections are misplaced. The summary judgment has conclusively determined the Respondent’s liability and is not subject to reconsideration in these proceedings. [11] The confirmation of the interim order is not moot or academic. Although the principal relief has been adjudicated, the interim order reserved costs, and its confirmation remains necessary to regularise the procedural history and to enable the Applicant to seek those costs. In MEC for Economic Development, Gauteng and Another v Vilakazi and Others [1] , the Supreme Court of Appeal emphasised that interim orders serve a functional purpose and may require confirmation even after final relief has been granted. [12]     In the present matter, the interim order served its intended purpose: it preserved the status quo , enabled the Applicant to obtain critical financial records that supported the recovery of misappropriated funds. There is no legal or factual basis to discharge it. ORDER [13]     I, therefore, make the following order: 1.     The interim order granted by this Court on 10 October 2023 is hereby confirmed. 2.     The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs reserved in the interim order. MPN MBONGWE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA APPEARANCES For the Applicant:                        Adv M Barnard Instructed by:                              Dixon Attorneys For the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents:  Mr N Voyi Instructed by:                              Ndumiso Voyi Incorporated Date of hearing:                          24 April 2025 Date of judgment:                        07 November 2025 [1] (783/2023) [2024] ZASCA 126. sino noindex make_database footer start