In a judgment handed down by Judge Rithy Singh on 24 July, the court upheld the legal principle of lis alibi pendens, which prevents parties from pursuing the same dispute in parallel court proceedings.
“The court cannot sanction RGS running parallel litigation,” Singh said, adding that the company should pursue its original November 2024 application to its conclusion rather than initiating new proceedings.
The judgment represents another legal victory for the Vision Consortium (Vision) and Tongaat Hulett’s business rescue practitioners, whose rescue plan remains in force while the original court challenge continues.
According to court papers, in its latest application, RGS sought an order declaring the business rescue plan unlawful and invalid, requested access to documents relating to Vision Consortium’s funding arrangements and agency agreements, and asked the court to enforce an earlier disclosure order, despite an appeal still being pending.
However, Singh found that the issues raised were substantially the same as those contained in RGS’s original application, which remains before the court.
“I am satisfied that the relief sought in both applications is substantially the same,” she said.
Singh added that RGS had failed to identify any new facts or a fresh cause of action that would justify launching another application, and that allowing both matters to continue simultaneously would duplicate litigation, waste judicial resources, and create the risk of conflicting judgments.
Disclosure request refused
The court also dismissed RGS’s application to compel the disclosure of agency agreements and other documents linked to Vision’s funding structure, as Singh found that RGS had failed to establish a legal right to the confidential documents.
The judgment also noted that an independent facility agent had already confirmed there was no impediment to implementing the rescue transactions, weakening RGS’s argument that the documents were required.
In addition, RGS sought permission to execute an earlier disclosure order while an appeal was pending.
The court declined the request, finding that RGS had not demonstrated the “exceptional circumstances” required by law, nor had it shown that it would suffer irreparable harm if execution was refused.
By contrast, Singh held that compelling disclosure could cause irreversible prejudice to Vision because confidential information “could never be ‘undisclosed’” should the appeal later succeed.
In a further setback for RGS, the court ordered it to pay the legal costs of the application.
