Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Otto (654/91) [1992] ZASCA 228; 1993 (1) SA 639 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 456 (A) (27 November 1992)

Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Otto (654/91) [1992] ZASCA 228; 1993 (1) SA 639 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 456 (A) (27 November 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to establish that Otto was ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Division during the relevant period, as required by section 149(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act. The evidence showed that Otto's residence in Cape Town was sporadic and temporary, with his real home and business interests in Canada. Furthermore, the claim for costs awarded to Otto against Co-op was an incorporeal movable situated at the debtor's domicile, which was Germany, and not within the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Division. The court also found that the applicant's standing as a creditor was not affected by the alleged cession,...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 228
Parties
Appellant: Nahrungsmittel GmbH; Respondent: Heinz Bernd Otto
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 1992
Case Number
654/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Provisional Sequestration Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hoexter, Vivier, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Sequestration Jurisdiction, Ordinary Residence, Incorporeal Property Situs, Leave to Appeal, Creditor Standing
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Sequestration Jurisdiction Ordinary Residence Incorporeal Property Situs Leave to Appeal Creditor Standing

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nahrungsmittel GmbH

Appellant

Heinz Bernd Otto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Provisional Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Cape Provincial Division had jurisdiction to sequestrate Otto's estate under section 149(1) of the Insolvency Act.
  2. 2 Whether Otto was 'ordinarily resident' within the jurisdiction during the relevant period.
  3. 3 Whether Otto owned or was entitled to property within the jurisdiction at the time of the petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the applicant failed to establish that Otto was ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Division during the relevant period, as required by section 149(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act. The evidence showed that Otto's residence in Cape Town was sporadic and temporary, with his real home and business interests in Canada. Furthermore, the claim for costs awarded to Otto against Co-op was an incorporeal movable situated at the debtor's domicile, which was Germany, and not within the jurisdiction of the Cape Provincial Division. The court also found that the applicant's standing as a creditor was not affected by the alleged cession,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The order discharging the provisional sequestration is confirmed.