The court considered a review application arising from an application surrounding a facilitation agreement between the parties. 

A receiver was appointed and it was alleged that there was a conflict of interest. The first respondent was appointed, but the directors refused to hand over the management of the company. An order was sought, to declare the duties and functions of the receiver. 

The court held that it was the receiver’s duty to make returns and accounts, to uphold his fiduciary duty to the company and investigate the causes of the company’s failure.  Therefore, the receiver was expected to take charge of the business. 

It was found that there was nothing prohibiting the appointment of a receiver from the same firm representing the creditor. The applicant argued that it was an error on the face of it to appoint the advocate of the second respondent as the Receiver as it was a conflict of interest.  

The court found that an error on the face of it must be an error on a substantial point of law staring one in the face, leaving one with no other options. Whereas, an error which has to be established by a process of reasoning, cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record. 

The court found that the applicant was asking the court to review something that was never an issue in the original application. 

The court held that to bring an application for review on a prayer which did not form part of the original application is improper and would cause an injustice. 

Application dismissed.