Firstrand Bank Limited v Ronson Trading (Pty) Ltd (13145/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 247 (17 December 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPPHC 247
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Webster
- Case number
- 13145/2010
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Webster
- Case number
- 13145/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the respondent is clearly indebted to the applicant under the loan facility agreement and suretyship. The respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide or reasonable grounds for disputing the debt. Assertions regarding other companies within the group possessing adequate funds or pending property sales do not constitute valid resistance to the liquidation application. The respondent's defence was insufficient and did not raise a genuine dispute. Accordingly, the requirements for a final winding-up order were satisfied.
Court disposition
Final order of winding up granted against the respondent.
Orders
- The respondent is placed under final order of winding up.
02
Material facts
Parties
Firstrand Bank Limited
ApplicantRonson Trading (Pty) Ltd
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Loan Advanced on 28 January 2008: ZAR 5,500,000
- Loan Advanced Under Facility Agreement: ZAR 1,493,400
- Invoice Issued by Respondent (us$): USD 2,886,464.59
- Offer for Property Purchase (golden Tau Developments): ZAR 110,000,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Winding Up Application / Final Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent is indebted to the applicant under the loan facility agreement and suretyship.
- 02
Whether the respondent has demonstrated a bona fide and reasonable dispute regarding its indebtedness.
- 03
Whether the respondent should be placed under final liquidation.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the respondent is indebted under a written loan facility agreement and a deed of suretyship. The amounts of R5,500,000 and R1,493,400 were lent and advanced, and repayment was due within eighteen months. There are no suspensive conditions in the agreement. The applicant seeks a final order of liquidation due to non-payment.
- Respondent
- The respondent asserts that the loan was intended as a development loan, repayable after completion of the development from proceeds of unit sales. It argues that the applicant should recover the debt from Double Ring (Pty) Ltd, which owns the relevant property. The respondent claims it is able to pay, citing contracts and invoices within its group, and refers to an offer for property purchase by Golden Tau Developments (Pty) Ltd.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Robson v Wax Works (PTY) Ltd 2001(3) SA 1117 (C) at para 15, page 1122 H-I
The respondent bears the onus to demonstrate that the indebtedness is disputed bona fide and on reasonable grounds.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the respondent is clearly indebted to the applicant under the loan facility agreement and suretyship. The respondent failed to demonstrate any bona fide or reasonable grounds for disputing the debt. Assertions regarding other companies within the group possessing adequate funds or pending property sales do not constitute valid resistance to the liquidation application. The respondent's defence was insufficient and did not raise a genuine dispute. Accordingly, the requirements for a final winding-up order were satisfied.
Obiter and limits
- The existence of funds or assets within related companies does not absolve the respondent from its own indebtedness under the loan agreement.
- A genuine dispute must be supported by reasonable grounds, not mere assertions of future payments or group resources.
Court disposition
Final order of winding up granted against the respondent.
- The respondent is placed under final order of winding up.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE NO.: 13145/2010
DATE:17/12/2010
In the matter between:
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED …..............................................................APPLICANT
v
RONSON TRADING (PTY) LTD...............................................................RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WEBSTER J
1. This is an application for the liquidation of the respondent. The application is based on a written loan facility agreement entered
into between the applicant and the respondent on 28 August, 2007, and a deed of suretyship dated 30 November, 2007, which the respondent
executed in favour of the applicant and on Golden Tau Developments (PTY) LTD.
2. It is not disputed that the amounts claimed were indeed lent and advanced by the applicant as set out in its founding affidavit in the respective sums of R5 500 000 on 28 January, 2008 and Rl 493 400 in accordance with the aforesaid loan facility agreement.
3. It is further not disputed that the funds so advanced to the two entities were repayable within eighteen (18) months from the date the said funds were advanced. I can find nothing in the loan agreement (referred to in paragraph 1 supra) that suggests that such repayments were subject to any suspensive conditions.
4. The respondent offerstas a defence the assertion that the money advanced by the applicant was for a "development loan" and the intention of the parties was that it would be repaid after the completion of the development with the proceeds of units sold in such development.
5. The respondent further avers that the applicant should have recovered the money owing by it from Double Ring (PTY) LTD, the company in whose name the immovable property forming the subject matter of the claim for R5 million is registered. It is further averred that the respondent is well-able to pay as "...Ronson Mozambique, SA, a company within the Ronson Group, has been appointed as development manager in terms of a contract vaiued R120 mi//ion...[and]...A first invoice was issued by Respondent in the amount of US $ 2 886 464.59 in respect of'(sic) the project..."
6. It is further averred that Golden Tau Developments (PTY) LTD, another company within the Ronson Group, received an offer for the purchase of its immovable property in an amount of R110 million..."
7.1 There is no doubt whatsoever that the respondent is indebted to the applicant. The respondent bears the onus, in such circumstances, to demonstrate that the indebtedness is being disputed bona fide and on reasonable grounds (Robson v Wax Works (PTY) Ltd 2001(3) SA 1117 (C) at para 15, page 1122 H-I).
7.2 The respondent's resistance in the matter falls far short of demonstrating any reasonable grounds in disputing its indebtedness. That one or other companies within its group is possessed of adequate funds to pay the amount due to the applicant
does not constitute a valid resistance to this application. It is my considered view that there is no "genuine dispute" or "bona fide dispute" between the parties.
8. It is accordingly ordered that the respondent be and is hereby placed under final order of winding up.
G.
WEBSTER
JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.