Royal Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phezulu Ilanga Vending (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/183282) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1024 (13 October 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 1024 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Royal Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phezulu Ilanga Vending (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/183282) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1024 (13 October 2025) Royal Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others v Phezulu Ilanga Vending (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/183282) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1024 (13 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1024.html sino date 13 October 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2025-183282 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO DATE M M ANTONIE In the matter between: ROYAL TRADING ENTERPRISE (PTY) LTD First Applicant XOLANE MAXIM MAXEGWANA Second Applicant RICHARD ZAMILE MAXEGWANA Third Applicant and PHEZULU ILANGA VENDING (PTY) LTD First Respondent TOP VENDING (PTY) LTD Second Respondent DIRK KENNETH TUCKER Third Respondent STEWART BERIC BROWN Fourth Respondent JUDGMENT ANTONIE AJ: [1] This matter came before me as an ex parte application on 7 October 2025. The applicants were represented by the second applicant. In the notice of motion, the applicants sought wide ranging relief including an order that First National Bank be interdicted and restrained from allowing any funds to be withdrawn or transferred from the bank account/s held by the second respondent. [2] I stood the application down until 11h30 on 8 October 2025 in order to give me an opportunity to consider the application which, together with the annexures, was voluminous. When the application was called, I granted an interim order in terms of which, inter alia , I interdicted both First National Bank and the directors, agents and employees of the second respondent from transacting on the FNB account. That order is to be found on CaseLines at 078-3 to 078-5. [3] At approximately 12h35 on 8 October 2025, I received a message from my secretary to advise that counsel and attorney for the second, third and fourth respondents had approached her and advised that they wished to be heard and have the order that I had made approximately 45 minutes earlier, recalled. I instructed my secretary to advise counsel for the respondents to upload whatever documentation they had exchanged with the applicants (if any) and that I would convene court at 13h30. [4] Prior to convening to hear the respondents, the respondents’ attorney uploaded a notice of intention to oppose [1] and proof of service of the notice of intention to oppose which was an email that had been sent to, inter alia , the second applicant at 09h02 on Wednesday, 8 October 2025. I was also furnished with a letter that had been addressed to the Deputy Judge President on 8 October 2025 advising that the respondents wished to oppose the relief sought in the ex parte application and that, on the previous afternoon, during a telephone conversation between the respondents’ attorney and the second applicant, the second applicant refused to furnish the attorney with a copy of the application. [5] When the matter was called at 13h30 on 8 October 2025, and after questioning by me, the second applicant conceded: [a]    He had refused to furnish the respondents’ attorney with a copy of the ex parte application. [b]    He had received the notice of intention to oppose at 09h02 that morning. [c]    He had failed, prior to my granting the interim order, to draw any of these facts to my attention. [6] It was clear to me that the applicants had failed to disclose material facts to the court and, in my view, had acted dishonestly. At the request of respondents’ counsel and having regard to the applicants’ deliberate failure to disclose all material information to me, I granted the following order. [2] [a]    The order that I made this morning is recalled with immediate effect. [b]    The ex parte application brought by the applicants is struck from the roll with costs on an attorney and client scale, including costs on scale C. [c]    The applicant is to serve the ex parte application on each of the respondents per Sheriff before the matter may be enrolled again. MICHAEL ANTONIE Acting Judge of the High Court Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg Date of Hearing: 8 October 2025 Date of Judgment: 13 October 2025 For the Applicants: Second Applicant For the Respondent: Adv J Maxwell Instructed by: Swartz Weil Van der Merwe Greenberg Inc Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email.  The date for the hand down is deemed to be 13 October 2025 [1] CaseLines , 007-2 – 007-3 [2] CaseLines 078-1 to 078-2 sino noindex make_database footer start