Absa Bank Limited v PP Mare Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (8655/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 53 (25 March 2025)

Absa Bank Limited v PP Mare Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (8655/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 53 (25 March 2025)

The court found that the respondent was not seriously disputing its indebtedness to the applicant, with a debt exceeding R100 outstanding for more than three weeks after demand. The respondent's challenge to the debt was not based on reasonable grounds, as substantial payments were made without insisting on a detailed statement. The respondent failed to provide financial statements, preventing the court from assessing its liquidity. The applicant established a prima facie case of commercial insolvency, and the existence of security over properties did not preclude the granting of a provisional winding up order. The applicant discharged its onus, and a provisional order was appropriate.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 53
Parties
Applicant: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: PP Mare Boerdery (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2025
Case Number
8655/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Winding Up Order
Outcome
Provisional winding up order granted against the respondent.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Company Liquidation, Commercial Insolvency, Provisional Winding Up, Debt Collection, Secured Lending
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Suretyship Company Liquidation Commercial Insolvency Provisional Winding Up Debt Collection +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Applicant

PP Mare Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is unable to pay its debts as contemplated in section 345 of the Companies Act.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to grant a provisional winding up order against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent bona fide disputes its indebtedness to the applicant on reasonable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not seriously disputing its indebtedness to the applicant, with a debt exceeding R100 outstanding for more than three weeks after demand. The respondent's challenge to the debt was not based on reasonable grounds, as substantial payments were made without insisting on a detailed statement. The respondent failed to provide financial statements, preventing the court from assessing its liquidity. The applicant established a prima facie case of commercial insolvency, and the existence of security over properties did not preclude the granting of a provisional winding up order. The applicant discharged its onus, and a provisional order was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Provisional winding up order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent PP Mare Boerdery (Pty) Ltd is placed under a provisional order of winding up in the hands of the Master of the High Court Polokwane.
  • A rule nisi is issued calling upon the respondent and all interested parties to show cause on 19 June 2025 why the provisional order should not be confirmed and made final.