Cash Crusaders Franchising (Pty) Ltd v Mulaudzi (29047/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 876 (2 December 2015)

Cash Crusaders Franchising (Pty) Ltd v Mulaudzi (29047/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 876 (2 December 2015)

The court found that the respondents are indebted to the applicant in terms of several judgments and arbitration awards, with substantial amounts unpaid. The sheriff's nulla bona return and the respondents' failure to satisfy the judgments constitute acts of insolvency under the Insolvency Act. The first respondent's argument that the suretyships are void due to lack of spousal consent under section 15 of the Matrimonial Property Act was rejected, as the court accepted that the suretyships were signed in the ordinary course of business, invoking the exception in section 15(6). The requirements for a final order of sequestration were met: the applicant holds a liquidated claim, the...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 876
Parties
Applicant: Cash Crusaders Franchising (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Matthews Tuwani Mulaudzi; Respondent: Violet Mabontsi Mulaudzi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2015
Case Number
29047/2015
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Final order of sequestration granted against the respondents.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Suretyship, Matrimonial Property Act, Acts of Insolvency, Liquidated Claim
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Sequestration Suretyship Matrimonial Property Act Acts of Insolvency Liquidated Claim

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cash Crusaders Franchising (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Matthews Tuwani Mulaudzi

Respondent

Violet Mabontsi Mulaudzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be placed under final sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the suretyships signed by the first respondent are null and void under section 15 of the Matrimonial Property Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have committed acts of insolvency as defined by the Insolvency Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents are indebted to the applicant in terms of several judgments and arbitration awards, with substantial amounts unpaid. The sheriff's nulla bona return and the respondents' failure to satisfy the judgments constitute acts of insolvency under the Insolvency Act. The first respondent's argument that the suretyships are void due to lack of spousal consent under section 15 of the Matrimonial Property Act was rejected, as the court accepted that the suretyships were signed in the ordinary course of business, invoking the exception in section 15(6). The requirements for a final order of sequestration were met: the applicant holds a liquidated claim, the...

Court Disposition

Final order of sequestration granted against the respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are placed under final sequestration.
  • The costs of this application are to be costs in the administration of the respondents' insolvent estate.