L.M.V v M.V (7833/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 505 (6 July 2018)

L.M.V v M.V (7833/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 505 (6 July 2018)

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim exceeding R100.00 against the respondent, based on an unsatisfied maintenance judgment. The sheriff's nulla bona return and the respondent's own admission of indebtedness demonstrated that the respondent was unable to pay his debts and had committed acts of insolvency as defined in section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's participation in a debt review arrangement did not benefit the applicant, as no payments were made towards maintenance arrears. The court was satisfied that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors and exercised its discretion to grant a provisional sequestration order, finding...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 505
Parties
Applicant: L M V; Respondent: M V
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 July 2018
Case Number
7833/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration Order
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.
Judges
Maakane
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Maintenance Arrears, Act of Insolvency, Advantage to Creditors, Liquidated Claim, Court Discretion
Civil Procedure Family and Children Provisional Sequestration Maintenance Arrears Act of Insolvency Advantage to Creditors Liquidated Claim Court Discretion

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

Parties

L M V

Applicant

M V

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a liquidated claim of not less than R100.00 against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has committed an act of insolvency or is insolvent within the meaning of section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether there is reason to believe that sequestration will be to the advantage of the respondent's creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim exceeding R100.00 against the respondent, based on an unsatisfied maintenance judgment. The sheriff's nulla bona return and the respondent's own admission of indebtedness demonstrated that the respondent was unable to pay his debts and had committed acts of insolvency as defined in section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's participation in a debt review arrangement did not benefit the applicant, as no payments were made towards maintenance arrears. The court was satisfied that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors and exercised its discretion to grant a provisional sequestration order, finding...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent is placed under provisional sequestration.
  • The respondent and any other party wishing to avoid a final order must advance reasons on 13 August 2018 at 10:00 or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard.