Jenn Training and Consultancy (Pty) Ltd v Ad Ladem (Pty) Ltd t/a Kids Campus (2724/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 125 (14 April 2023)

Jenn Training and Consultancy (Pty) Ltd v Ad Ladem (Pty) Ltd t/a Kids Campus (2724/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 125 (14 April 2023)

The court found that the respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of inability to pay its debts after receiving a section 345 notice. The respondent admitted to borrowing R2,000,000 and not making payments, and did not provide reasonable or bona fide grounds to dispute the debt or its commercial insolvency. The respondent's challenge to the applicant's locus standi and the authority of the deponent was unconvincing and should have been raised under Rule 7. The applicant established a prima facie case for provisional liquidation, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for a provisional winding-up order were met.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 125
Parties
Applicant: Jenn Training & Consultancy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ad Ladem (Pty) Ltd t/a Kids Campus
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2023
Case Number
2724/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Liquidation Order
Outcome
Provisional liquidation order granted against the respondent.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Company Liquidation, Commercial Insolvency, Locus Standi, Provisional Liquidation, Authorization of Proceedings
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Liquidation Commercial Insolvency Locus Standi Provisional Liquidation Authorization of Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jenn Training & Consultancy (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ad Ladem (Pty) Ltd t/a Kids Campus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Liquidation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is commercially insolvent and should be placed under provisional liquidation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the liquidation application.
  3. 3 Whether the deponent to the founding affidavit was properly authorised to institute proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumption of inability to pay its debts after receiving a section 345 notice. The respondent admitted to borrowing R2,000,000 and not making payments, and did not provide reasonable or bona fide grounds to dispute the debt or its commercial insolvency. The respondent's challenge to the applicant's locus standi and the authority of the deponent was unconvincing and should have been raised under Rule 7. The applicant established a prima facie case for provisional liquidation, and the court was satisfied that the requirements for a provisional winding-up order were met.

Court Disposition

Provisional liquidation order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent company is placed under provisional liquidation in the hands of the Master of the High Court.
  • Interested parties are called upon to show cause on 1 June 2023 why a final order of liquidation should not be granted.