Opperman v Silver en Ander (4747/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 233 (13 December 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZAFSHC 233
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- S.P.B. Hancke
- Case number
- 4747/2011
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- S.P.B. Hancke
- Case number
- 4747/2011
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence through his sworn affidavit and supporting written offers to indicate the value of the first respondent's assets. The court had previously determined that the minimum dividend to creditors would be at least 10 cents in the rand, with the possibility of it reaching 22 cents. However, after considering all facts and circumstances, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the benefit to creditors. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
02
Material facts
Parties
Christiaan Josia Opperman
Applicant Counsel: Adv. J.H. van der B LubbeMartha Aletta Silver
RespondentKaapstad Herwinning
Respondent Counsel: Adv. B.C. StoopAmounts and remedies
- Minimum Dividend to Creditors (cents in the Rand): ZAR 10
- Possible Maximum Dividend to Creditors (cents in the Rand): ZAR 22
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sequestration Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has shown, on a balance of probabilities, that sequestration of the first respondent's estate will benefit creditors.
- 02
Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal regarding the benefit to creditors.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the value of the first respondent's assets is sufficiently demonstrated through his sworn affidavit and supporting written offers for the disputed property. He argues that these documents provide a reliable indication of asset value and that the minimum dividend to creditors would be at least 10 cents in the rand, possibly as high as 22 cents.
- Respondent
- The first respondent argues that the applicant has failed to provide admissible evidence of asset value, as the valuation by Hugo (annexure 'B') was not confirmed under oath and constitutes inadmissible hearsay. Therefore, the applicant has not discharged the burden of proof required to show benefit to creditors.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 12(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act, Act 24 of 1936
In an application for sequestration, the applicant must show on a balance of probabilities that there is reason to believe sequestration will benefit creditors.
- 02
Opperman v Silver en Ander (4747/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 233
Written offers for property may serve as a reliable indication of asset value when included in a sworn affidavit.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence through his sworn affidavit and supporting written offers to indicate the value of the first respondent's assets. The court had previously determined that the minimum dividend to creditors would be at least 10 cents in the rand, with the possibility of it reaching 22 cents. However, after considering all facts and circumstances, the court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the benefit to creditors. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- A written offer for property, when attached to a sworn affidavit, can provide a good indication of asset value in sequestration proceedings.
- The valuation of assets must be supported by admissible evidence; hearsay valuations are insufficient.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Ruling
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saaknommer: 4747/2011
In die saak tussen:-
CHRISTIAAN
JOSIA OPPERMAN ...........................................Applikant
en
MARTHA ALETTA SILVER ......................................Eerste Respondent
KAAPSTAD HERWINNING ....................................Tweede Respondent
UITSPRAAK DEUR: HANCKE, WND RP
_____________
GELEWER OP: 13 DESEMBER 2012
[1] Die huidige aansoekdoener was die tweede respondent in hierdie hof en om verwarring te vermy word na die partye verwys soos wat hulle na verwys is in die hof a quo.
[2] Hierdie is ‘n aansoek om verlof om te appelleer teen ‘n bevel van hierdie hof wat toegestaan is op 2 Augustus 2012 ingevolge waarvan die boedel van die eerste respondent finaal gesekwestreer is.
[3] Die enigste grond waarop die huidige aansoek gebaseer is, is of die applikant daarin geslaag het om op ‘n oorwig van waarskynlikhede aan te toon dat
“daar rede bestaan om aan te neem dat dit tot voordeel van die skuldeisers van die skuldenaar sal strek as sy boedel gesekwestreer word”.
Vergelyk artikel 12(1)(c) van die Insolvensiewet, Wet 24 van 1936.
[4] Namens die eerste respondent word aangevoer dat die applikant geen bewys verskaf het ten aansien van die waarde van die bates van die eerste respondent nie, aangesien die waardasie van Hugo, synde aanhangsel “B” tot die funderende eedsverklaring, nie onder eed bevestig is nie en dus ontoelaatbare hoorsê getuienis sou daarstel. Dit moet egter in gedagte gehou word dat die waarde van die bates blyk uit die beëdigde verklaring van die applikant, tesame met die bewyse van aanbiedings wat gemaak was ten opsigte van die spesifieke bates waaroor die geskil tussen die partye bestaan het. ‘n Goeie aanduiding van die waarde van die eiendom is ‘n skriftelike aanbod vir die betrokke eiendom. Die skriftelike aanbod vorm deel van die applikant se eedsverklaring. In die uitspraak is reeds gehandel met die bateposisie van die eerste respondent en kan die dividend selfs so hoog as 22 sent in die rand beloop, alhoewel my bevinding was dat daar minstens aangetoon is dat die minimum dividend 10 sent in die rand behoort te beloop.
[5] In aggenome al die feite en omstandighede is ek van mening dat daar nie redelike vooruitsigte op sukses in hierdie verband bestaan nie.
Bygevolg word die aansoek van die hand gewys, met koste.
______
S.P.B. HANCKE, WND RP
Namens die applikant: Adv. J.H. van der B Lubbe
In opdrag van:
Gerbers Junius Prokureurs
BLOEMFONTEIN
Namens die tweede respondent: Adv. B.C. Stoop
Schoeman Maree Ingelyf
BLOEMFONTEIN
/spieterse
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.