Naude and Another v Louis Pasteur Medical Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others

Louis Pasteur Hospital Holdings (Pty) Ltd, a healthcare provider, entered voluntary business rescue proceedings in June 2018, with Mr Etienne Jacques Naude appointed as business rescue practitioner. A proposed business rescue plan was rejected by creditors in June 2019. Thereafter, disputes arose among shareholders, creditors and competing bidders regarding the practitioner’s authority to convene further meetings, voting interests, and standing to participate in business rescue proceedings. Pasteur Investments and First Clinic obtained an urgent High Court order uplifting the statutory moratorium and granting them standing to intervene and participate in business rescue processes, while interdicting further creditors’ meetings pending related applications. Naude and Pasteur Holdings appealed that order to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Before the appeal was heard, the primary parties settled their dispute and Pasteur Investments abandoned the High Court order. Lenmed Investments, a purchaser of a minor creditor’s claim and a competing bidder, sought to intervene in the appeal and opposed its removal from the roll, arguing that important legal issues remained live.

The appeal was declared moot and removed from the roll. Lenmed’s intervention application was struck from the roll. Lenmed Investments (Pty) Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the intervention application and the mootness application on an attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of two counsel where applicable.

The decision clarifies the application of mootness in South African appellate practice, particularly in the context of business rescue disputes. It confirms that settlement and abandonment of orders can render appeals moot, and that third parties cannot insist on adjudication absent a live controversy. The case also underscores the court’s discretion to penalise litigants who persist with proceedings for purely commercial or tactical reasons.