I-Com Services (Pty) Ltd v Picture Perfect Trading 239 (Pty) Ltd (76358/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 533 (22 August 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 533
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- TSS Malatji
- Case number
- 76358/2015
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- TSS Malatji
- Case number
- 76358/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a specific amount due and payable by the respondent that would ground a liquidation application. The respondent's cessation of payments related to trust funds, not debts owed to the applicant. No grounds were demonstrated for liquidation on the basis of inability to pay debts. Regarding the just and equitable ground, the court expressed concern about the parties' conduct in debt collection and the potential impact on the public, but determined that this did not justify liquidation. Instead, the matter should be referred to the Council for Debt Collectors for further oversight.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
- The Registrar is ordered to transmit this judgment to the Council for Debt Collectors.
02
Material facts
Parties
I-Com Services (Pty) Ltd
ApplicantPicture Perfect Trading 239 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Winding Up Application / First Instance
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent is unable to pay its debts to the applicant and thus liable to be provisionally wound up.
- 02
Whether it is just and equitable to grant a winding up order under the circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the respondent is indebted to it and unable to pay its debts, justifying a provisional winding up order. Alternatively, the applicant argued that it would be just and equitable to wind up the respondent due to the manner in which the respondent conducted its debt collection business and failed to pay over collected monies.
- Respondent
- The respondent denied any indebtedness to the applicant and argued that no case for winding up had been made. The respondent asserted that the funds collected were trust monies, not amounts due and payable to the applicant, and that the applicant had not established any specific debt that the respondent was unable to pay.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Companies Act 71 of 2008
A provisional winding up order may be granted if the respondent is unable to pay its debts or if it is just and equitable to do so.
- 02
Common law principles on trust funds
Monies collected as trust funds for the benefit of creditors are not necessarily debts due and payable to the applicant for purposes of liquidation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a specific amount due and payable by the respondent that would ground a liquidation application. The respondent's cessation of payments related to trust funds, not debts owed to the applicant. No grounds were demonstrated for liquidation on the basis of inability to pay debts. Regarding the just and equitable ground, the court expressed concern about the parties' conduct in debt collection and the potential impact on the public, but determined that this did not justify liquidation. Instead, the matter should be referred to the Council for Debt Collectors for further oversight.
Obiter and limits
- An audit should be conducted to ensure that monies collected from debtors are paid over to creditors and that any fees charged comply with the legislative framework.
- The impasse between the parties may affect ordinary members of the public whose debts are being collected.
Court disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
- The application is dismissed with costs.
- The Registrar is ordered to transmit this judgment to the Council for Debt Collectors.
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
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 76358/2015
22/8/2017
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
Revised.
In the matter between:
I-COM SERVICES (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
PICTURE PERFECT TRADING 239 (PTY) LTD Respondent
(Registration number: 2010/016788/07)
JUDGMENT
MALATJI, AJ
1. The applicant seeks an order for the provisional winding up of the respondent either on the basis that it is indebted and therefore unable to pay its debt to the applicant alternatively that it would be just inequitable to do so. The respondent in turn argues that it is not indebted to the applicant and further that a case has not been made out for winding up of the respondent.
2. The parties concluded an agreement in terms of which the applicant appointed the respondent as what is effectively a sub-contractor to collect debt on behalf of the applicant either in respect of debtors books the applicant will have purchased from the clients alternatively collection services it would have tendered for clients.
3. The relationship resulted in some 302 000 debtors being the subject matter of the initial contract. The respondent alleges that a misrepresentation was made to it that there is billions more money to be collected and the result of which the respondent expanded on its business in anticipation thereof.
4. I have found it difficult to establish precisely the amount which would be due and payable to the applicant from the papers and which the respondent would be unable to pay and thereby giving rise to an act of insolvency entitling the granting of a provisional order of liquidation. At best it is the admission made by the respondent in paragraph 17.16, 17.18 and reiterated, albeit differently, in paragraph 18.7, that the respondent ceased to make any payments of amounts collected from debtors owed to the applicant.
5. The applicant has not been able to point this court to an amount that is due and payable which the respondent is unable to pay, which will then ground a liquidation application. At best there is an allegation relating to the fact that the respondent stopped making payments of monies collected from debtors, but even that money cannot be characterised as monies that are due and payable to the applicants but these rather trust funds entrusted to both the applicant and the respondent for purposes of paying their debt over to the respective creditors.
6. It is accordingly my view that no grounds have been demonstrated that the respondent should be liquidated on the usual grounds of inability to pay its debts.
7. In relation to the just and equitable grounds, this court has a concern over the manner in which the parties are conducting themselves in relation to the collection of debt from members of the public and the payment thereof to creditors who would then exonerate those debtors. The matter seems to have already been reported to the Council for Debt Collectors by the applicant. It will be part of my order that the council be made aware of the impasse between these two parties and the impact it may be having on the ordinary member of the public from whom money is collected with a view to being paid over. It is my considered view that an audit needs to be conducted and it needs to be ensured that money being collected is indeed paid over to creditors and that if there are any fees that are being charged in respect thereof, that they are in line with the applicable legislative framework.
8. In the result, I make the following order:
1. The application is dismissed with costs.
2. The Registrar is ordered to tansmit this judgment to the Council for Debt Collectors.
____
PP
LEDWABA DJP
TSS
MALATJI
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG PROVINCIAL DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Judgment:
22 August 2017
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.