Body Corporate Garden v Ekoere (19470/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 586 (15 August 2014)

Body Corporate Garden v Ekoere (19470/13) [2014] ZAGPPHC 586 (15 August 2014)

Although the respondent committed acts of insolvency and default judgments were obtained, the only proved debt was R1148. The payment of R3500 was made prior to the first judgment and not considered, and the second judgment was rescinded. The respondent's conduct was recalcitrant, but the circumstances did not justify sequestration. The court exercised its discretion and found that the application for sequestration should be dismissed.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 586
Parties
Applicant: THE BODY CORPORATE GARDEN; Respondent: EMANUEL TOM EKOERE
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Case Number
19470/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Sequestration
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
BAM
Legal Topics
Sequestration Application, Default Judgment, Outstanding Levies, Deeds of Insolvency
Civil Procedure Land and Property Sequestration Application Default Judgment Outstanding Levies Deeds of Insolvency

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BODY CORPORATE GARDEN

Applicant

EMANUEL TOM EKOERE

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's conduct and outstanding debt justify an order for sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the default judgments obtained against the respondent constitute sufficient proof of insolvency.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant sequestration based on the facts presented.

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent committed acts of insolvency and default judgments were obtained, the only proved debt was R1148. The payment of R3500 was made prior to the first judgment and not considered, and the second judgment was rescinded. The respondent's conduct was recalcitrant, but the circumstances did not justify sequestration. The court exercised its discretion and found that the application for sequestration should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for sequestration is dismissed with costs.