sought. To move two separate applications on urgency and directed at the same respondents largely involving the same issue, in my view smacks of abuse of the court’s processes, bombarding the respondents with different applications when one to which they could put their undivided attention, could have been lodged. [39] Another reason that I find should disincline the from granting the relief sought by the applicants is the very nature of the winding up of the applicant. In para [17] above, I stated that according to the learned author Henochberg, the sections in question are of application only in circumstances where there is a case of involuntary winding up of the company because the company is unable to pay its debts. [40] It stands as a historical fact that in the instant case, the winding up of the 3rd applicant was by a special resolution of the shareholders. This clearly is not a case of an involuntary winding up. As intimated earlier, the purpose of this exercise, is to ascertain, in cases where foul play is suspected in the company ending up moribund and unable to pay its debts, and the process is geared to getting an explanation from those whose hands appear to be tainted with blood or may have useful information that may assist the liquidators in tracing the funds or the property of the company in liquidation. [41] In this regard, Heathcote AJ dealt with the purpose for the application of the said section in Gases and Others v The Social Security Commission and Others: The learned Acting Judge stated the purpose as: . . . to assist the liquidators to establish where the N$ 30 million is.’ ‘ Clearly, some foul play was suspected in that matter and the calling of those who may have had information regarding where the said amount was, made a great deal of sense. [42] In the instant case, it is clear that the shareholders of the 3rd applicant are the ones who took the decision to wind up the company and there is no
sought. To move two separate applications on urgency and directed at the same respondents largely involving the same issue, in my view smacks of abuse of the court’s processes, bombarding the respondents with different applications when one to which they could put their undivided attention, could have been lodged. [39] Another reason that I find should disincline the from granting the relief sought by the applicants is the very nature of the winding up of the applicant. In para [17] above, I stated that according to the learned author Henochberg, the sections in question are of application only in circumstances where there is a case of involuntary winding up of the company because the company is unable to pay its debts. [40] It stands as a historical fact that in the instant case, the winding up of the 3rd applicant was by a special resolution of the shareholders. This clearly is not a case of an involuntary winding up. As intimated earlier, the purpose of this exercise, is to ascertain, in cases where foul play is suspected in the company ending up moribund and unable to pay its debts, and the process is geared to getting an explanation from those whose hands appear to be tainted with blood or may have useful information that may assist the liquidators in tracing the funds or the property of the company in liquidation. [41] In this regard, Heathcote AJ dealt with the purpose for the application of the said section in Gases and Others v The Social Security Commission and Others: The learned Acting Judge stated the purpose as: ‘ . . . to assist the liquidators to establish where the N$ 30 million is.’ Clearly, some foul play was suspected in that matter and the calling of those who may have had information regarding where the said amount was, made a great deal of sense. [42] In the instant case, it is clear that the shareholders of the 3rd applicant are the ones who took the decision to wind up the company and there is no