M.B v J.P.M (49323/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 449 (9 May 2023)

M.B v J.P.M (49323/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 449 (9 May 2023)

The court found that the respondent committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment debt or point out disposable assets to the sheriff, as evidenced by the nulla bona return. The respondent's defence that his assets exceed his liabilities was not supported by credible evidence, and his offer of a notice listing assets did not constitute adequate security. The pending application to set aside the warrant was dismissed as academic due to a prior judgment upholding the warrant's validity. The applicant established that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, as the judgment debt remained unpaid for 29 years and the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 449
Parties
Applicant: M.B; Respondent: J.P.M
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2023
Case Number
49323/2021
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Final sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.
Judges
ML Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Act of Insolvency, Nulla Bona Return, Maintenance Claim, Divorce Settlement
Civil Procedure Sequestration Act of Insolvency Nulla Bona Return Maintenance Claim Divorce Settlement

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.B

Applicant

J.P.M

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is insolvent within the meaning of the Insolvency Act of 1936.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established an act of insolvency as required by section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the sequestration will be to the advantage of the general body of creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment debt or point out disposable assets to the sheriff, as evidenced by the nulla bona return. The respondent's defence that his assets exceed his liabilities was not supported by credible evidence, and his offer of a notice listing assets did not constitute adequate security. The pending application to set aside the warrant was dismissed as academic due to a prior judgment upholding the warrant's validity. The applicant established that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, as the judgment debt remained unpaid for 29 years and the respondent failed to provide a satisfactory...

Court Disposition

Final sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent is placed under final sequestration.
  • The costs of the application will be costs in the sequestration.