Corporate Money Managers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Panomo Properties 49 (Pty) Ltd (65348/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 132 (24 May 2013)

Corporate Money Managers (Pty) Ltd and Others v Panomo Properties 49 (Pty) Ltd (65348/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 132 (24 May 2013)

The court found that Mr Parreira, having been provisionally sequestrated, was an unrehabilitated insolvent and thus disqualified from acting as a director or representing the respondent. The respondent failed to inform the court and applicants of Mr Parreira's sequestration, and provided no explanation for the insolvency or the failure of the business. On the evidence, the respondent was commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The court held that the voluntary liquidation should be set aside and a provisional order for compulsory winding-up granted, as it was just and equitable and in the interests of creditors.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 132
Parties
Applicant: Corporate Money Managers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: CMM Finpro (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Micro Capital (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Four Rivers Trading 307 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Regent Group Capital (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Escape Investments (Pty) Ltd (T/A Sakha Iblokho); Applicant: CMM Treasury Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: CMM Cash Management Fund; Applicant: Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.; Applicant: John Roderick Graeme Polson N.O.; Applicant: Louis Strydom; Respondent: Panomo Properties 49 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2013
Case Number
65348/2012
Procedural Posture
Liquidation Application / Provisional Liquidation Order; Return Date Set for Final Winding Up
Outcome
Provisional order granted for compulsory winding-up of the respondent; voluntary liquidation set aside; return date set for final order.
Judges
Pretorius
Legal Topics
Compulsory Winding Up, Voluntary Liquidation, Commercial Insolvency, Director Disqualification
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Compulsory Winding Up Voluntary Liquidation Commercial Insolvency Director Disqualification

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corporate Money Managers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

CMM Finpro (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Micro Capital (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Four Rivers Trading 307 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Regent Group Capital (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Escape Investments (Pty) Ltd (T/A Sakha Iblokho)

Applicant

CMM Treasury Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

CMM Cash Management Fund

Applicant

Pieter Hendrik Strydom N.O.

Applicant

John Roderick Graeme Polson N.O.

Applicant

Louis Strydom

Applicant

Panomo Properties 49 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Liquidation Application / Provisional Liquidation Order; Return Date Set for Final Winding Up

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts.
  2. 2 Whether the voluntary liquidation should be set aside in favour of compulsory liquidation by the court.
  3. 3 Whether Mr Parreira, as an unrehabilitated insolvent, has locus standi to oppose the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Parreira, having been provisionally sequestrated, was an unrehabilitated insolvent and thus disqualified from acting as a director or representing the respondent. The respondent failed to inform the court and applicants of Mr Parreira's sequestration, and provided no explanation for the insolvency or the failure of the business. On the evidence, the respondent was commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The court held that the voluntary liquidation should be set aside and a provisional order for compulsory winding-up granted, as it was just and equitable and in the interests of creditors.

Court Disposition

Provisional order granted for compulsory winding-up of the respondent; voluntary liquidation set aside; return date set for final order.

Orders

  • Panomo Properties 49 (Pty) Ltd and all interested parties are called upon to show cause on 12 August 2013 why the respondent should not be compulsorily wound-up by order of the court.
  • Any voluntary winding-up implemented in respect of the respondent is to be set aside.