Two companies, Islandsite Investments One Hundred and Eighty (Pty) Ltd and Confident Concept (Pty) Ltd, part of the Oakbay Group associated with the Gupta family, were placed in voluntary business rescue in February 2018. The appellants, Knoop and Klopper, were appointed as business rescue practitioners (BRPs). Disputes arose between the BRPs and the companies’ management, leading Mrs Gupta to apply for their removal under s 139(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. A full court of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria granted an order removing the appellants. The appellants sought leave to appeal and Mrs Gupta simultaneously sought leave to execute the removal order pending appeal under s 18(1) and (3) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. Leave to appeal and leave to execute were both granted. The appellants lodged an urgent appeal under s 18(4) against the execution order. Despite this, replacement BRPs were appointed and purported to withdraw appeals and terminate the business rescue proceedings. The appellants challenged the validity of these actions, contending that the execution order was automatically suspended pending the urgent appeal.
The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the full court granting leave to execute was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the application for leave to execute. It was declared that the execution order was suspended pending the appeal, that the appellants were not validly removed as business rescue practitioners, that the appointments of replacement BRPs and the termination of business rescue proceedings were invalid, and that Islandsite and Confident Concept remained under business rescue under the supervision of the appellants pending finalisation of the main appeal.
The case authoritatively clarifies the operation of s 18(4)(iv) of the Superior Courts Act, confirming that the automatic suspension of an execution order pending an urgent appeal is mandatory and cannot be overridden by a court. It underscores the protective purpose of s 18 in appellate procedure and has important implications for execution pending appeal, particularly in high-stakes commercial and business rescue contexts.