Murray N.O v Ramphele (25067/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 409 (13 June 2021)

Murray N.O v Ramphele (25067/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 409 (13 June 2021)

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim against the respondent for more than R100, based on undisputed taxed costs orders. The respondent had committed an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act, as the sheriff's return indicated insufficient property to satisfy the judgment. The respondent's arguments regarding personal liability and joint and several debtors were rejected as unfounded in law and fact. The court was satisfied that sequestration would benefit creditors, as the respondent owned property and there was a reasonable prospect of pecuniary benefit. No constitutional rights of the respondent were unduly violated, and the court...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 409
Parties
Applicant: Cloete Murray N.O.; Respondent: Tshepiso David Ramphele
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2021
Case Number
25067/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Acts of Insolvency, Creditor Claims, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Provisional Sequestration Acts of Insolvency Creditor Claims Costs Orders

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cloete Murray N.O.

Applicant

Tshepiso David Ramphele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for provisional sequestration under section 10 of the Insolvency Act are met.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent committed acts of insolvency as contemplated in sections 8(b), 8(e), and 8(g) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has locus standi as a creditor.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim against the respondent for more than R100, based on undisputed taxed costs orders. The respondent had committed an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act, as the sheriff's return indicated insufficient property to satisfy the judgment. The respondent's arguments regarding personal liability and joint and several debtors were rejected as unfounded in law and fact. The court was satisfied that sequestration would benefit creditors, as the respondent owned property and there was a reasonable prospect of pecuniary benefit. No constitutional rights of the respondent were unduly violated, and the court...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent's estate.

Orders

  • The respondent's estate is placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High Court, returnable on 2 August 2021.
  • The respondent and all other interested parties are called upon to show cause why a final order for sequestration should not be granted on the return date.