Jordaan and Another v Le Roux and Others (070088/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 651 (20 June 2025)

Jordaan and Another v Le Roux and Others (070088/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 651 (20 June 2025)

The court found that the applicants had established liquidated claims against the first respondent exceeding R100, and that the first respondent had committed acts of insolvency under sections 8(c) and 8(f) of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's written notice of inability to pay and attempts to dispose of assets satisfied the statutory requirements. The court was satisfied that there was reason to believe sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, as further investigation could reveal assets for distribution. The intervening applicants, as duly appointed liquidators, demonstrated a direct and substantial interest and were granted leave to intervene. The respondent's defences...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 651
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Christiaan Hermanus Jordaan; Applicant: Ruaan Oosthuizen; Respondent: Nico Le Roux; Respondent: Kobus van der Westhuizen N.O.; Respondent: Selby Musawenkosi Ntsibande N.O.; Appellant: Jacolien Frieda Barnard N.O.; Appellant: Richard Masoanganye N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2025
Case Number
070088/23
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Sequestration and Intervention Applications
Outcome
Final sequestration order granted; leave to intervene granted to the intervening applicants.
Judges
N L Moila
Legal Topics
Final Sequestration, Act of Insolvency, Creditor Claims, Intervention Application, Ponzi Scheme Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Final Sequestration Act of Insolvency Creditor Claims Intervention Application Ponzi Scheme Liability

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Christiaan Hermanus Jordaan

Applicant

Ruaan Oosthuizen

Applicant

Nico Le Roux

Respondent

Kobus van der Westhuizen N.O.

Respondent

Selby Musawenkosi Ntsibande N.O.

Respondent

Jacolien Frieda Barnard N.O.

Appellant

Richard Masoanganye N.O.

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Sequestration and Intervention Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the requirements of section 12 of the Insolvency Act to declare the first respondent insolvent.
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to the intervening applicants to intervene in the application to declare the first respondent insolvent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established liquidated claims against the first respondent exceeding R100, and that the first respondent had committed acts of insolvency under sections 8(c) and 8(f) of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's written notice of inability to pay and attempts to dispose of assets satisfied the statutory requirements. The court was satisfied that there was reason to believe sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, as further investigation could reveal assets for distribution. The intervening applicants, as duly appointed liquidators, demonstrated a direct and substantial interest and were granted leave to intervene. The respondent's defences...

Court Disposition

Final sequestration order granted; leave to intervene granted to the intervening applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to intervene is granted to the first and second intervening applicants.
  • The provisional sequestration order dated 26 July 2023 is confirmed; the first respondent is finally sequestrated.