However, the M Z Hassam Trust subsequently instituted an action in thesame division of the High Court for an order setting aside the section 252order and for ancillary relief. The matter went to trial. At the conclusion of thetrial, the High Court granted the orders claimed by the M Z Hassam Trust. Itessentially reasoned that the section 252 order differed materially from thesection 252 application in two respects, namely that the section 252 orderprovided for the sale of the shares in Oyster Plastics, SA File and Moss Ridgeand for the purchase thereof only by the purchasing respondents. The HighCourt accordingly held that the section 252 order had erroneously beengranted in the absence of the M Z Hassam Trust, within the meaning ofUniform Rule 42(1)(a). This rule provides that a court may rescind an order orjudgment erroneously sought or erroneously granted in the absence of anaffected party.The appellants are mainly the purchasing respondents and the directors of theFreedom Group. They sought leave to appeal from the trial court, but itrefused leave. The appellants petitioned this court for leave to appeal, but the
3petition was dismissed. However, the President of the Supreme Court ofAppeal (SCA) referred the refusal of leave for reconsideration. The partieswere also directed to address the court on the merits.Today the SCA found for the appellants. It held that an order to which a partyis procedurally entitled cannot be said to have been erroneously granted inthe absence of an affected party. The SCA stated that a party is procedurally
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 3 pages?
- Summer '14
- Supreme Court of the United States, Appellate court, Freedom Group