Justice delayed is justice denied. If justice is first and foremost about finding the TRUTH and serving justice as soon and speedy as possible, then that what is going on in the current judicial system is nothing but an abomination of truth and justice.
A good example here-of is the latest court ruling in an ongoing court case stemming from 2018 in the Pretoria High Court in which Judge Ronel Gertruida Tolmay on 13 January 2025 struck an urgent application for an Ex Parte order from the roll “due to lack of urgency”.
Interestingly enough, in this long-standing case of many years, the entire South African judicial system and its collaboration with influential banks and powerful businessmen and liquidators is for the first time openly confronted in the Pretoria High Court.
Now who decides when and what cases are “urgent” and in society’s best interest these days where court cases are postponed and dragged out indefinitely until the plaintiffs surrender and/or run out of money?
In this particular Case No 000011/2025 the Applicant Tiador 119 CC versus Nedbank, ABSA, Shoprite Holdings and five prominent individuals in the business and judicial sector, sought urgent court intervention via an Ex Parte order to, amongst others, provide irrefutable proof that a provisional and final liquidation order issued respectively on 24 July 2018 and 22 August 2018 against Tiador 119 in the Eastern Cape Division (Makhanda) were indeed fraudulent.
The Applicants also required certain documents to be provided to them by the Respondents as well as an order declaring the liquidation orders invalid, or alternatively that no liquidation order was granted. They also ask that the status quo ante of Tiador and Silver Falls Trading 178 CC be restored.
Read the court ruling here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10j78XO-BWlJjx94VBZ65Q7BhuZw-bET2/view?usp=sharing_eil&ts=67bdeccf
Judge Tolmay’s “no urgency” ruling and her findings that the Pretoria High Court has no authority or jurisdiction to overrule or nullify another court division’s orders or to provide documents relating to that division’s order, evoked a strong response from Johann Roodt, who represents Tiador 119 as Applicant 1 in his capacity as trustee of The Red Hot Trust.
“Judge Tolmay completely disregarded the fraudulent orders placed in the matter. She clearly did not investigate the matter thoroughly. She also disregarded two Affidavits confirming that the purported court orders are fraudulent, and that the Chief Registrar of the Pretoria High Court was prepared to give evidence to that fact, if subpoenaed.”
Roodt furher states that Judge Tolmay would not have prejudiced the Respondents if the Ex Parte order was granted.
“Justice would have been served for all parties, as the Respondents could then have defended the accusations of major fraud, if they could have proven the contrary.”
“To have not granted the Ex Parte order is in the eyes of the normal person, and the public, and in law, preposterous, and served to protect the Respondents.”
This comes at a time when public trust in courts and the judicial system has dropped to an all-time low. The common opinion is that justice is bought, the judicial system captured and one’s chances to succeed in court depend on the particular judge on the bench – and of course, influence and power in the judiciary.
This matter, and several other matters against this group, are widely circulating on various social media platforms. In the underneath lengthy video, Roodt reveals some shocking incidents since 2004 – including several attempts on his life – that lead to the current situation.
Roodt’s claim that the Respondents in this case (and several others) have filed patently and proven fraudulent ‘court orders’ is substantiated by a Media Statement dated 2 February 2017, placed openly in the public domain by the Office of the Chief Justice, and confirming the prevalence of fraudulent court orders since 2017 already.
It was again confirmed by the Office of the Chief Justice in the Judiciary Annual Report of 2017/2018, which was gazetted (see page 40). (www.judiciary.org.za) https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/Annual-Reports/OCJ_Annual_Report_2017-18.pdf
Both documents, in the public domain, confirm:
* that authentic court orders must have standard identifying features, such as the use of the Judiciary emblem at the top (logo).
* It is also mandatory to use a unique court stamp to prohibit fraudulent order duplication.
These precautionary measures have been implemented since 2017 already.
The Applicants feel strongly that Judge Tolmay, at the minimum, should review this judgement, giving particular and specific attention to especially the laid down requirements for authenticating purported court ‘orders’ – especially since the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) Head Office is situated in Sunnyside, Pretoria. The question is – how can the Pretoria High court not have jurisdiction or authority to prove/disprove the authenticity of court orders and documents if CIPC is right on its doorstep and when that authentication lies at the heart of the entire ongoing case?
When these disputed ‘orders’ are compared with the Media Statement dated 7 February 2017 by the Office of the Chief Justice, as well as the Judiciary Annual Report of 2017, it is patently clear that the purported orders of Tiador 119 CC do not comply with the mandatory judicial requirements.
- There is no mandatory Judiciary emblem/logo affixed to the top.
- There is no mandatory court seal affixed to the ‘orders’.
- There are no mandatory court date stamps affixed to the ‘orders’.
The Applicants claim these orders are manifestly fraudulent and “were used to destroy and steal millions from Tiador 119 and its associated companies, in so doing destroying an entire group and almost 300 jobs and households, in poor rural areas where jobs are scarce.”
The Applicants further state that the signatures of Judge Tolmay are redacted on the judgement drawn on case 000011/2015 in the Pretoria High Court. On further investigation, it was discovered that in the judgement document drawn directly from the CIPC website, the judge’s signatures were redacted, but on another document directly from the court typist, the signatures do appear. How does that happen?
Compare the two documents: https://drive.google.com/file/d/127FVCYDdN2ClZVFR_1WAsfOSdUhmNwi-/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10j78XO-BWlJjx94VBZ65Q7BhuZw-bET2/view?usp=sharing_eil&ts=67bdeccf
This is highly suspicious in itself. This has never, to anyone’s knowledge, ever happened. It appears sinister.
Furthermore, no law records, or law library – including SAFLII – records any provisional or final liquidation orders for Case 5078/2018 TIADOR 119 CC. (Or any of the other three entities against which exactly similar fraudulent orders were fabricated.)
The Plaintiff’s plea was for a court ruling to urgently compel Nedbank to present the full bank accounts wherein the funds belonging to Tiador 119, for rental payments by Shoprite in terms of a lease for Erf 86 Flagstaff, Eastern Cape) has been diverted, by way of fraudulent documents filed by liquidators Kurt Knoop and Dallie van der Merwe (Respondents 2 and 3), on Nedbank. It also requested the compelling of documents used to open these bank accounts, together with the disputed provisional liquidation order.
The two Nedbank accounts which the Applicants claim were opened to launder stolen funds from Tiador since late November 2018 to date, were identified and filed before Judge Tolmay.
The account numbers are:
Nedbank account number 118 655 4584 (Manci Knoop Financial services)
Nedbank account number 165 814 6546 (Manci Knoop Financial Services)
The Applicants state that Shoprite had never paid its rental to Tiador twice per month, or into two separate bank accounts, for some 15 years.
“Neither the Liquidators nor the Grahamstown Master in the matter, Flip van der Wall, disclosed the second bank account. All concealed it. Investigators uncovered it and filed additional PAIA applications on Shoprite, the Liquidators, Absa Bank and Nedbank, to give them the opportunity to clarify this secret bank account, the reasons for a second bank account, and to expose the ‘beneficiaries’ of both these bank accounts. It remains unanswered,” Roodt said.
“The Ex Parte application was specifically made to obtain a provisional order and to permit, in law, the Respondents, the opportunity to make representations after the Applicants were given a provision order, as asked. By giving the ex parte order, the Respondents are not prevented the opportunity to defend the accusations made against them”, Roodt said.
It is a given that the information requested many times over, if it was given when demanded a few times, would have satisfied and settled the matter without any court application, if it was supplied and satisfied the laws, and if there was no fraud.
Notwithstanding the fact that the application satisfies all justification for urgency, the presiding judge ruled it as not urgent. This permits the continuous theft of funds belonging to Tiador 119 CC.
Another alarming discrepancy in judicial conduct that seems to permeate this longstanding case, is that Judge Tolmay apparently allowed a man, believed to be the advocate for one of the Respondents (probably Charalambos Christodoulou) to privately ‘consult’ with her in her chambers just before judgement delivery without calling the plaintiff’s legal representatives, who were present in court and waiting for the case to proceed.
This is contrary and against the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This is an open court matter, and therefore it is in the public interest. The public is now becoming increasingly aware of this rampant corruption and theft of assets, disguised as ‘lawful court action’.
Maybe it is time that the public empower and acquaint themselves with the Judicial Code of Conduct under which they are protected against unlawful actions and rulings by the same people who are supposed to uphold the law and to make sure that justice and truth prevails.
A JUDGE’S CONDUCT, IN TERMS OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, ADOPTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 12 OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICE COMMISSSION ACT, 1994 (Gazetted on 18 October 2012, Gazette No 35802)
https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/notices/2012/20121018-gg35802-nor865-judicial-conduct.pdf
The Preamble (Para 3) states that a judge must apply the law without fear, favour or prejudice.
- Paragraph 4 states that they (judges) “will uphold and protect the Constitution and human rights entrenched in it, and will administer justice to all persons alike, without fear or favour, in accordance with the Constitution and the law”.
- Paragraph 6 states: “The overriding principles of openness, transparency and accountability that permeate the Constitution are equally applicable to judicial institutions and officers”.
- Paragraph 7 states that “it is necessary for public acceptance of its (the court’s) authority and integrity”. (This must also be internationally generally accepted).
- Paragraph 10 states “. . . the Code of Judicial Conduct , which judges MUST adhere to and that any wilful or grossly negligent breach of the Code may amount to misconduct which will lead to disciplinary action in terms of section 14 of the Act”.
- Article 2(b) (3) states:
”Any wilful or grossly negligent breach of this Code is ground upon which a complaint against a judge may be lodged in terms of section 14(4)(b) of the Act.”
- Article 4 Note 4 (iv) states: Judicial conduct is to be assessed objectively through the eyes of the reasonable person.
- Article 8 Note 8 (i) states: The legitimacy of the judiciary depends on the public understanding AND (PUBLIC) CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
- Article 10 (b) states: “A JUDGE MUST INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AT HAND THOROUGHLY.”
Judiciary Annual Report 2017/2018 page 40 Fraudulent Court order gazetted. https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/Annual-Reports/OCJ_Annual_Report_2017-18.pdf