that the applicants’ attempt to amend that application was dismissed. This means from that date the applicants were aware of the need to make this application but did not do so until 8 November 2011. Mapota should, if she was applying her mind to the urgency of this matter, have explained this delay”. The learned judge cannot be faulted in his reasoning. There were pertinent issues regarding delays in instituting proceedings which should have been obvious had Miss been applying her mind. There was an evident delay in the proceedings which Mapota had to be explained before the matter could be considered as being of an urgent nature. The appellants had tendered the share certificates together with signed transfer forms. Once the due date for the settlement of the loan passed without payment, it must have occurred to the appellants that the first respondent had the right to sell the shares. The fear of irreparable harm arising from the sale of the shares would have arisen on 10 March 2011. There is no explanation from Miss as to why no action was taken soon after 10 March 2011 to Mapota stop the sale. As mentioned by the learned judge, Shah had on two occasions issued threats to liquidate the security. There were letters written by on behalf of Chidawu in answer to the threats. The threats would have caused fear of irreparable harm yet there was no explanation as to why action was not taken soon after the threats were uttered to stop the sale of the shares. This assumes paramount importance when regard is had to the fact that the shares had been tendered to Shah in negotiable form and could be transferred without the need to notify any of the appellants.
that the applicants’ attempt to amend that application was dismissed. This means from that date the applicants were aware of the need to make this application but did not do so until 8 November 2011. Mapota should, if she was applying her mind to the urgency of this matter, have explained this delay”. The learned judge cannot be faulted in his reasoning. There were pertinent issues regarding delays in instituting proceedings which should have been obvious had Miss Mapota been applying her mind. There was an evident delay in the proceedings which had to be explained before the matter could be considered as being of an urgent nature. The appellants had tendered the share certificates together with signed transfer forms. Once the due date for the settlement of the loan passed without payment, it must have occurred to the appellants that the first respondent had the right to sell the shares. The fear of irreparable harm arising from the sale of the shares would have arisen on 10 March 2011. There is no explanation from Miss Mapota as to why no action was taken soon after 10 March 2011 to stop the sale. As mentioned by the learned judge, Shah had on two occasions issued threats to liquidate the security. There were letters written by on behalf of Chidawu in answer to the threats. The threats would have caused fear of irreparable harm yet there was no explanation as to why action was not taken soon after the threats were uttered to stop the sale of the shares. This assumes paramount importance when regard is had to the fact that the shares had been tendered to Shah in negotiable form and could be transferred without the need to notify any of the appellants.
SC-12-13CHIDAWU%20%26%20OTHERS%20VS%20SHA%20%26%20OTHERS.docx