Marais aand Others v Buy Direct Website Services (Pty) Ltd (12684/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 18 (16 February 2018)

Marais aand Others v Buy Direct Website Services (Pty) Ltd (12684/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 18 (16 February 2018)

The respondent failed to file any substantive answering affidavit or heads of argument and did not apply for condonation for late procedural filings. The applicant established, through uncontested evidence, that the respondent participated in a fraudulent investment scheme and failed to pay amounts due to investors, including the applicant. Notices in terms of sections 344(h) and 345(1) of the Companies Act were delivered, and the respondent did not pay within the stipulated period. The respondent's failure to provide proof of business operations, financial statements, or employment records further supports the conclusion that it is unable to pay its debts. The applicant complied with all...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Johannes Jacobus Marais; Respondent: Buy Direct Website Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 February 2018
Case Number
12684/2017
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Application / Final Order
Outcome
Application granted; respondent placed under final winding-up.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Winding Up of Company, Inability to Pay Debts, Companies Act 1973, Ponzi Scheme Allegation
Commercial and Corporate Winding Up of Company Inability to Pay Debts Companies Act 1973 Ponzi Scheme Allegation

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

Parties

Johannes Jacobus Marais

Applicant

Buy Direct Website Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Application / Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent company should be placed under final winding-up.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is deemed unable to pay its debts under sections 344(h) and 345(1) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has complied with statutory requirements for winding-up.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to file any substantive answering affidavit or heads of argument and did not apply for condonation for late procedural filings. The applicant established, through uncontested evidence, that the respondent participated in a fraudulent investment scheme and failed to pay amounts due to investors, including the applicant. Notices in terms of sections 344(h) and 345(1) of the Companies Act were delivered, and the respondent did not pay within the stipulated period. The respondent's failure to provide proof of business operations, financial statements, or employment records further supports the conclusion that it is unable to pay its debts. The applicant complied with all...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent placed under final winding-up.

Orders

  • The respondent is placed under final winding-up.
  • Costs of the application are to be costs in the winding-up application.