Nedbank Limited v Weidman N.O and Others (31/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 267 (26 March 2020)

Nedbank Limited v Weidman N.O and Others (31/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 267 (26 March 2020)

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie claim against the respondents, supported by certificates of balance and the respondents' own concessions of indebtedness. The respondents' assertion that the debt was not due was rejected, as the notarial general covering bond triggered immediate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 267
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Werner Jacobus Weideman N.O; Respondent: Reinette Weideman N.O; Respondent: Joseph Johann Saunders N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
31/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Provisional Sequestration
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondents' estate; condonation for late filing of answering affidavit granted; application for referral to oral evidence dismissed.
Judges
N.S. Daniso
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Act of Insolvency, Creditor Claims, Notarial Covering Bond, Condonation of Late Filing
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Provisional Sequestration Act of Insolvency Creditor Claims Notarial Covering Bond Condonation of Late Filing

Source-derived case record

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Werner Jacobus Weideman N.O

Respondent

Reinette Weideman N.O

Respondent

Joseph Johann Saunders N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Provisional Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie claim against the respondents for provisional sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have committed acts of insolvency or are factually insolvent.
  3. 3 Whether it is to the advantage of creditors that the respondents' estate be sequestrated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie claim against the respondents, supported by certificates of balance and the respondents' own concessions of indebtedness. The respondents' assertion that the debt was not due was rejected, as the notarial general covering bond triggered immediate payment upon breach, which was not disputed. The respondents were found to be insolvent, with liabilities exceeding assets and an unsatisfied judgment leading to asset attachment. The court held that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting referral to oral evidence, as the disputes raised were not bona fide and could be resolved on the papers. The application for...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondents' estate; condonation for late filing of answering affidavit granted; application for referral to oral evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • The late delivery by the respondent of its answering affidavit is condoned. No order as to costs.
  • The application to refer the matter for oral evidence is dismissed.