Cases Calendar

 May 2019
< Back


Posted on 8 Jun 2017
Case number: CT016JUL2014
Case type: Name Disputes
Decisions Status: Dismissed

1) This is an application in terms of section 160 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the
Act) for a determination and order that the name of the First respondent’s does not
satisfy the requirements of section 11 (2) of the Act and that the First Respondent to
should be directed to choose a new name.
Preliminary Issues
2) The Deponent to the Applicant’s papers is Carol Juanita Ras, an executive
(marketing) of the Applicant who avers that she is authorised to depose to the
affidavit and to represent it in these proceedings.
3) Upon perusing the Certificate (annexure PP1 to the affidavit) issued by the
Registrar of Companies and Close Corporation in respect of Plasco Painting
Contractors, (respondent) dated the 12th March 2014, it is evident that the
respondent Plasco Painting Contractors (respondent) was registered on the 18th
August 2010. (emphasis added). This date is relevant as the respondent CC was
registered before the 1st May 2011 which is the effective date on which the Act
came into being. (emphasis added)
4) It is my view that the Tribunal can only entertain the merits of this application in
terms of section 160 (3) of the Act, once it is satisfied that it has the necessary
jurisdiction to do so.
5) The Respondent’s name was registered prior to the coming into operation of the
Act and I am to consider whether the Act applies retrospectively or not.
6) It is my view that it is a fundamental principle of our law that generally, laws are
prospective and not retrospective in nature.

Decisions and Orders

Date of Decision: 21 Nov 2014

Decisions Status: Dismissed

Document downloads

< Previous