Case Law[2024] ZAGPJHC 16South Africa
Kiszkurno v Sail Holdings (Pty) Limited (2022-057556) [2024] ZAGPJHC 16 (10 January 2024)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
10 January 2024
Headnotes
back would be paid to him when Respondent’s financial position stabilised;
Judgment
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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 16
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Kiszkurno v Sail Holdings (Pty) Limited (2022-057556) [2024] ZAGPJHC 16 (10 January 2024)
Kiszkurno v Sail Holdings (Pty) Limited (2022-057556) [2024] ZAGPJHC 16 (10 January 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_16.html
sino date 10 January 2024
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2022-057556
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
DATE: 10/1/24
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
PIOTR SERGIUSZ
KISZKURNO
APPLICANT
AND
SAIL HOLDINGS (PTY)
LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KAPLAN
AJ:
1.
Applicant seeks an order placing Respondent under final
winding
up on the basis that Applicant is a creditor of Respondent in an
amount of “at least” USD 198 111 (“the
debt”),
that Applicant delivered a Notice to Respondent in terms of Section
345(1)(a) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973
(“the Act”)
and that Respondent has failed to make payment of the debt and is
thus deemed to be unable to pay the debt
as envisaged in terms of the
said Section of the Act.
2.
In his Founding Affidavit Applicant avers in regard to the debt
that:
2.1
he was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Respondent in terms of
an agreement
concluded on 6 October 2020, a copy of which is attached
to the Founding Affidavit marked “P4” (“the
employment
agreement”) in terms whereof he was entitled to a
monthly salary of USD 24 409.00;
2.2
his salary was reduced from July 2021, and it was agreed that
the portion
of salaries held back would be paid to him when
Respondent’s financial position stabilised;
2.3
as at April 2022 the total outstanding in salary payments due to him
together
with the reduced portion amounted to USD 139 090.00
and he was also owed amounts in respect of a bonus for the year end
2020 in the sum of USD 73 227.00, business expenses paid by him in
the sum of USD 2 607.00 and accrued annual leave amounting to
USD 28
187.00;
2.4
as a result of the ever-growing debt owing to him, he met with
William Yang
(“Yang”) a director of Respondent and a
written agreement was concluded between Applicant and Yang on
29 April 2022,
a copy of which is attached to the Founding
Affidavit marked “P5”, (“the agreement”)
wherein it was recorded
that Applicant and Yang were able to come to
an agreement regarding the manner in which Respondent / Sail Group
would be able to
resolve his employment concerns which they discussed
and are outlined therein.
2.5
Part A of the agreement provides as follows:
“
A.
Employment concerns
When I was initially
appointed as Chief Executive Officer at Sail Holdings (Proprietary)
Limited, the agreement was that I would
receive a monthly salary of
$24 409.00.
Leading up to July
2021, due to the Sail Group’s operations being placed into
administration and care and maintenance, we
agreed on an adjustment
of an amount of $9 409.00 from my salary, and thereby reducing it to
$15 000.00 a month.
The balance of $9
409.00 would, however, be paid back to me once the Sail Group was
able to.
The following are a
few of the factors:
1.
The $15 000.00 reduced salary remains unpaid from February
2022 to April 2022;
2.
The total unpaid salary owed to me since February 2022 now
amounts to $45 000.00 ($15 000.00 for each month of February, March
and
April 2022) (“Unpaid Salary”);
3.
Between July 2021 to April 2022, an amount of $94 090.00
has accrued on the adjusted portion of my unpaid salary (“Adjusted
Portion”);
4.
My FY2020 bonus of three months’ salary awarded towards
me on 6 January 2021 remains unpaid and amounting to $73 227.00
(“FY2020 Bonus”);
5.
My business expenses of $2 607.00 remains unpaid (“Business
Expenses”); and
6.
I have accrued annual leave of 24.25 days amounting to $28 187.00
(“Annual Leave”).”
2.6
Paragraphs 1 to 3.2 and 3.6 of Part B of the agreement provides as
follows:
“
B.
Proposed way forward
“
The ultimate
purpose of this letter is to record what we agreed to during our
meeting of 13 April 2022 in respect of the way forward.
To that end,
the following was agreed:
1.
Sail Holdings (Proprietary) Limited, Sail International
Marketing Pte Ltd / Sail Group, being jointly and severally liable,
will
pay Unpaid Salary of $45 000.00 by end of May 2022 to me or my
nominee.
2.
Sail Holdings (Proprietary) Limited and my Kiszkurno Family
Trust or its nominee will conclude a subscription agreement and a
shareholders
agreement.
3.
My Kiszkruno Family Trust or its nominee will subscribe for 3%
(Three Percent) effective issued shares in Sail Holdings
(Proprietary)
Limited at par value (“the 3% Shares”), in
light of the Sail Group key assets, such as Sail Minerals (Pty)
Limited,
Sail Contracting (Proprietary) Limited and Black Chrome Mine
(Proprietary) Limited, currently being insolvent and under
administration
and care and maintenance. It is noted that all
property companies such as Calculated Property Investment
(Proprietary) Limited,
25 Sunninghill (Proprietary) Limited and
Sunninghill Offices (Proprietary) Limited are not intended to form
part of this agreement.
We shall investigate and find solution to
exclude these property companies:
3.1
the subscription agreement and subsequent shareholders
agreement will be concluded by my Kiszkurno Family Trust or my
nominee, the
shareholders of Sail Holdings (Proprietary) Limited and
the company itself;
3.2
the subscription agreement will be concluded and become
unconditional by no later than 30 June 2022, failing which, the
Adjusted
Portion, FY2020 Bonus, Business Expenses and Annual Leave
collectively totalling $198 111.00 will be paid to me within 10 days
after the date of 30 June 2022.
3.3
………
.
3.4
………
3.5
………
..
3.6
Once para B1 and B3 above are fully implemented and become
unconditional, my employment with Sail Holdings (Pty) Limited / Sail
International Marketing Pte Limited / Sail Group of Companies (“Sail
Group”) will be fully settlement and terminated.”
2.7
Because of the failure to conclude the subscription agreement
referred to in
the agreement, a breach notice was sent to Respondent,
Yang and Sail International Marketing (Pte) Limited on 3 October 2022
wherein:
(a)
it was alleged that Respondent, Yang and Sail International Marketing
(Pte) Limited
failed to fulfil their obligations in terms of the
agreement more particularly in that a subscription agreement and
shareholders
agreement had not been concluded;
(b)
it was demanded that Respondent, Yang and Sail International
Marketing (Pte)
Limited, within seven days, present a
satisfactory subscription agreement and shareholders agreement
or effect payment
of the sum of $198 111.00 within ten
days of date of receipt thereof.
2.8
Applicant caused a letter of demand in terms of Section 345 of the
Act to be
served on Respondent wherein reference was made to the
agreement which recorded that in the event that the subscription
agreement
was not concluded and became unconditional by 30 June
2022, Applicant would be entitled to payment of the sum of $198
111.00
and demanding payment of the said sum within three weeks of
receipt of the letter.
3.
Respondent opposed the application and filed an answering affidavit
wherein:
3.1
Respondent admitted the conclusion of the employment agreement and
averred that the reference to him being appointed as Chief Executive
Officer of Respondent is an error and that he was in fact
employed by
Sail International Marketing (Pte) Limited and was to render his
services as Chief Executive Officer of the Sail Group.
3.2
Respondent admitted the conclusion of the agreement but denied that
it was binding on the basis that it was induced by duress.
4.
The application for the winding up of Respondent is thus squarely
based on the terms of the agreement and in particular the provision
therein that in the absence of the conclusion of the subscription
agreement and same becoming unconditional by no later than
30 June 2022, the sum of $198 111.00 would be paid to
Applicant within ten days after the date of 30 June 2022.
5.
The following appears from the agreement:
5.1
as appears from the last page thereof it is concluded between
Applicant and
Yang;
5.2
the caption thereto refers to Applicant’s employment with
Respondent /
Sail International Marketing (Pte) Limited / Sail Group
of Companies;
5.3
the second paragraph in the introductory paragraphs refers to the
manner in
which Respondent / Sail Group will be able to resolve
Applicant’s employment concerns;
5.4
it was agreed that Respondent / Sail International Marketing (Pte)
Limited /
Sail Group being jointly and severally liable will pay
Applicant’s unpaid salary of $45 000.00 by end of May 2022 to
Applicant
or his nominee;
5.5
Respondent and the Applicant’s Kiszkurno Family Trust or its
nominee will
conclude a subscription agreement and a shareholders
agreement;
5.6
Applicant’s Kiszkurno Family Trust or its nominee will
subscribe for 3%
(three percent) effective issued shares in
Respondent at par value;
5.7
the subscription agreement and subsequent shareholders agreement will
be concluded
by Applicant’s Kiszkurno Family Trust or his
nominee, the shareholders of Respondent and the company itself;
5.8
the subscription agreement will be concluded and become unconditional
by no
later than 30 June 2022, failing which, the Adjusted Portion,
FY2020 Bonus, Business Expenses and Annual Leave collectively
totalling
$198 111.00 will be paid to Applicant within 10 days after
the date of 30 June 2022.
6.
Applicant alleges in the Founding Affidavit that the unpaid
salary of
$45 000.00 was paid.
7.
In the course of the hearing, I put to Counsel for both parties
that
I had difficulties as to whether Applicant had made out a case in its
Founding Affidavit as read with the agreement for the
debt being due,
owing and payable to him. This is because:
7.1
The agreement is concluded between Applicant and Yang. (O
n
the signatory page of the agreement, page 4 thereof, the agreement is
signed by Applicant in his personal capacity and by Yang
in his
personal capacity). Further, i
n this regard, it is averred by
Applicant in paragraph 36 of the Founding Affidavit that discussions
culminated in the conclusion
of the agreement between him and Yang.
7.2
The introduction to the agreement provides that the Applicant and
Yang were
able to come to an agreement regarding the manner in which
Respondent / Sail Group will be able to resolve his current
employment
concerns which had been discussed and which are outlined
therein.
7.3
There is no averment in the agreement as to who will effect payment
of the sum
of $198 111.00 in the event of the subscription
agreement not being concluded and becoming unconditional by no later
than
30 June 2022.
7.4
There is no averment in the Founding Affidavit as to why Respondent
is obliged
to effect payment of the sum of $198 111.00 in the
event of the subscription agreement not being concluded and becoming
unconditional
by no later than 30 June 2022.
8.
Thus:
8.1
Apart from
the fact that Respondent is not a party to the agreement, on a plain
reading thereof, it does not contain an obligation
on Respondent to
effect payment of the debt.
[1]
8.2
Apart from reliance on the agreement,
the Applicant does not make out
any other case in the Founding Affidavit in support of Respondent’s
obligation to effect
payment of the debt.
9.
In the course of argument, I put to Counsel for both parties
my
difficulty that Applicant’s Founding Affidavit as read with the
agreement does not make out a case for Respondent being
liable to
effect payment of the debt to Applicant. Argument was presented to me
in this regard by Counsel for both parties.
10.
For the reasons set out aforesaid, I am not satisfied that Applicant
has made
out a case that Respondent is liable to effect payment of
the debt to him. This finding is fatal to the success of the
application.
As a result thereof, it is not necessary for me to deal
with Respondent’s defence that it concluded the agreement under
duress
or any other issues on the papers.
11.
The point on which I have decided the application was not raised by
Respondent
either in its Answering Affidavit or in its Heads of
Argument. It was a point drawn to the attention of the parties by the
Court.
In these circumstances, it would in my view be appropriate for
each party to bear its own costs.
12.
Accordingly, I order that:
12.1
The application is dismissed. Each party is to effect payment of its
own costs.
JL
kaplan
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Appearances:
Appearance
for Applicant:
L
Acker
Instructed
by:
Ulrich
Roux Incorporated
Appearance
for Respondent:
T
Ohannessian SC
MCJ
van Kerckhoven
Instructed
by:
Beech
Veltman Incorporated
Date
of hearing:
10
November 2023
Date
of judgment:
10
January 2024
[1]
It is settled law that the point of departure in interpreting a
contract is the language of the document. Natal Joint Municipal
Fund
v Endumeni Municipality,
2012(4)
SA 593 (SCA), para 18.
Tshwane
City v Blair Athol Homeowners Association,
2019
(3) SA 398
(SCA).
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Szabo N.O v Jarkie-Trust Administrators (Pty) Ltd (Reasons) (2023/038089) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1198 (21 November 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1198High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar
Krejcir v Head of Prison, Kgosi Mampuru Maximum Correctional Facility and Others (2025/00035) [2025] ZAGPJHC 994 (3 October 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 994High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar
Krejcir v Mampuru and Others (2025/00035) [2025] ZAGPJHC 709 (3 June 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 709High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar
Kastelo Proprietary Limited v South African Reserve Bank and Others (2025/247149) [2026] ZAGPJHC 20 (19 January 2026)
[2026] ZAGPJHC 20High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar
Kachidza v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (40521/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1074 (26 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1074High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar