Murray and Others NNO v Ntombela and Others

The appellants were joint liquidators of Phehla Umsebenzi Trading 48 CC (in liquidation). In 2015, before liquidation, the first and second respondents allegedly purchased immovable property from Phehla Umsebenzi and paid the purchase price, but transfer was never effected. Phehla Umsebenzi was placed in liquidation in 2018, with the property still registered in its name. The liquidators elected not to transfer the property and instead sought to sell it on auction. The respondents applied for a stay of the auction and launched review proceedings to set aside the liquidators’ decision and to compel transfer. The liquidators opposed the review, contending in limine that the decision was not reviewable and that specific performance could not be ordered against liquidators. Despite this, the respondents brought an interlocutory application to compel production of the record under Uniform Rule 53. The High Court ordered the liquidators to produce the Rule 53 record, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the order compelling delivery of the Rule 53 record stood.

The case clarifies South African procedural law on the operation of Uniform Rule 53, reaffirming that the production of the review record is an automatic procedural consequence of launching review proceedings once jurisdiction is established. It confirms that respondents cannot delay or avoid disclosure of the record by raising preliminary objections on the merits, and it limits the misuse of Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) in review proceedings.