PPM Incorporated Attorneys v Greyling and Ander (14982/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 10 (6 February 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZAWCHC 10
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Smit
- Case number
- 14982/2011
More details
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Panel
- Smit
- Case number
- 14982/2011
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the first respondent's application for postponement was not bona fide, as documentary evidence showed that an application to set aside the default judgment had already been filed months earlier. The respondent's explanation regarding his lack of awareness was contradicted by the record. The court held that the requirements for a final sequestration order were satisfied, including the existence of a nulla bona return and the respondent's inability to pay the debt. The application for postponement was dismissed with costs, and the final sequestration order was granted.
Court disposition
Application for postponement dismissed with costs; final sequestration order granted.
Orders
- The application for postponement is dismissed with costs.
- The final sequestration order against the first respondent is granted.
02
Material facts
Parties
PPM Incorporated Attorneys
ApplicantHendrik Johannes Greyling
Respondent Counsel: Advocate Andre WaltersEster Berdina Greyling
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Sequestration Application / Final Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for postponement by the first respondent is bona fide.
- 02
Whether the first respondent has grounds to set aside the default judgment.
- 03
Whether the requirements for a final sequestration order are met.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the first respondent's application for postponement was not bona fide, as evidence showed that an application to set aside the default judgment had already been filed in October 2011. The applicant maintained that the first respondent attempted to mislead the court regarding his awareness and actions related to the default judgment. The applicant further submitted that the requirements for final sequestration had been met, including the existence of a nulla bona return and the respondent's inability to satisfy the judgment debt.
- Respondent
- The first respondent argued that he was unaware he could apply to set aside the default judgment until advised by Advocate Walters on 3 February 2012. He claimed his previous attorneys failed to inform him of this option and that he only recently instructed new attorneys to pursue such an application. He sought a postponement to bring the necessary application to set aside the judgment, asserting that the judgment was irregular and that he was acting on behalf of a company, not in his personal capacity.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Standard principles of civil procedure
A postponement will not be granted where the application is not bona fide and is intended to delay proceedings or mislead the court.
- 02
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
A final sequestration order may be granted where the applicant proves a nulla bona return and the respondent's inability to satisfy the judgment debt.
- 03
Rule 49 of the Magistrates' Court Rules
An application to set aside a default judgment must be made promptly and with full disclosure of relevant facts.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the first respondent's application for postponement was not bona fide, as documentary evidence showed that an application to set aside the default judgment had already been filed months earlier. The respondent's explanation regarding his lack of awareness was contradicted by the record. The court held that the requirements for a final sequestration order were satisfied, including the existence of a nulla bona return and the respondent's inability to pay the debt. The application for postponement was dismissed with costs, and the final sequestration order was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The conduct of the respondent's attorneys in failing to advise him of available remedies is regrettable but does not excuse misleading the court.
- The court will not tolerate attempts to delay proceedings through unfounded applications for postponement.
Court disposition
Application for postponement dismissed with costs; final sequestration order granted.
- The application for postponement is dismissed with costs.
- The final sequestration order against the first respondent is granted.
Source and reliance status
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
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.
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Judgment
UITSPRAAK
IN DIE HOE HOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA(WES-KAAP HOE HOF, KAAPSTAD)
SAAK NO:14982/2011
DATUM: 6 FEBRUARIE 2012In die saak tussen:PPM INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS ApplikantenHENDRIK JOHANNES GREYLING 1ste RespondentESTER BERDINA GREYLING 2de Respondent
SMIT, WnR:
Hierdie is 'n aansoek om die finale sekwestrasie van die eerste Respondent, Hendrik Johannes Greyling. 'n Voorlopige sekwestasiebevel is toegestaan op 1 Augustus 2011, op grond daarvan dat vonnis in die Landdroshof, BelIvilie, toegestaan is teen eerste respondent en dat die balju 'n nulla bona relaas gelewer net Die keerdatum is vasgestel op 6 September 2011.
Op 2 September 2011 is 'n opponerende beedigde verklaring van die eerste respondent geliasseer waarin drie substansiele verwere geopper is, naamik -
(a) dat die vonnis wat op 6 Junie 2011 toegestaan is, onregmatig was aangesien eerste respondent te a lie tersaaklike tye opgetree het namens Golf & Leisure Joint Ownership (Edms) Beperk en dat die eisbedrag deur die maatskappy verskuldig geword het; (b) dat eerste respondent die geregistreerde eienaar van Erf 359, Bantrybaai, is en dat dit gevolglik ontken word dat hy nie oor vervreembare bates beskik ter voldoening van die beweerde eis teen horn nie; (c) dat die feit dat hy direkteur van verskeie maatskappye is, op sigself waardeloos is. Volgens hom het hy die dagvaarding onmiddellik aan Kulenkampff prokureurs in Somerset-Wes oorhandig, maar hulle het versuim om die saak te opponeer en verstekvonnis moes derhalwe nooit teen hom toegestaan gewees het nie.
Op 6 September 2011 is die aansoek uitgestel na 7 Desember 2011 op die semi-dringende rol op die basis dat applikant repliserende stukke teen 19 September 2001 moes liasseer. Op 11 September is die saak by ooreenkoms uitgestel tot 6
Februarie 2012 op die basis dat die betooghoofde ooreenkomstig die praktykreels geliasseer moet word.
Geen betoogshoofde is namens eerste respondent geliasseer nie en vanoggend is ek voorsien van 'n aansoek om uitstel op die basis dat eerste respondent aansoek wil doen om tersydestelling van die vonnis. Hy beweer dat die prokureurs wat hom gehelp het met die opstel van die opponerende stukke hom nie geadviseer het dat hy kan aansoek doen om tersydestelling van die vonnis nie. Hy beweer dat hy eers op 3 Februarie 2012 deur advokaat Walters geadviseer is dat hy kan aansoek doen vir tersydestelling van die vonnis.
In paragrawe 12 tot 17 van sy funderende verklaring in die aansoek om uitstel beweer hy as volg:
"12. My voormalige prokureurs, Johan Viljoen & Genote, het my bygestaan met die opstel van my opponerende verklaring waartydens ek op hulle advies gesteun het.
13. Ongelukkig het my prokureur nie geadviseer dat ek kan aansoek doen om die verstekvonnis, wat ten gunste van die applikant teen my verkry is, tersyde te laat stel nie en was ek self ook onbewus van hierdie opsie wat beskikbaar is.
14. Ek het op ongeveer 27 Januarie 2012 my nuwe prokureur, mnr Francois Greeff, aangestel om my hierin te verteenwoordig.
15. My prokureur het vir die eerste maal op 2 Februarie 2012 die aansoekstukke ontvang weens die feit dat my voormalige prokureur sy lien oor die inhoud van sy leer uitgeoefen het, hangende die afhandeling van n geskil wat tussen ons ontstaan het.
16. My prokureur kon eers op 3 Februarie om ongeveer 14:15 aan advokaat Andre Walters opdrag gee en die aansoekstukke hierin aan horn voorsien.
17. Dit was eers na aanleiding van die advies wat van advokaat Walters bekom is, dat ek vir die eerste maal in kennis gestel is dat ek kan aansoek doen vir die tersydestelling van die vonnis wat die applikant teen my verkry het. Ek het my prokureur dadelik van instruksies voorsien om die nodige dokumente op te stel vir die bring van die nodige aansoek in hierdie verband."
By die beedigde verklaring wat ter opponering van die uitstel geliasseer is, is 'n afskrif aangeheg van 'n aansoek om tersydestelling van die vonnis wat deur Johan Viljoen & Genote namens die eerste respondent geliasseer is waaruit dit blyk dat die aansoek reeds op of ongeveer 10 Oktober 2011 geliasseer is.
Uit die voorgaande blyk dit nie alleen dat die aansoek om uitstel nie bona fide is nie, maar dat die tweede respondent getrag het om die Hof positief te mislei. Die aansoek om uitstel word derhalwe met koste van die hand gewys en die finale sekwestrasiebevel word toegestaan.
SMIT, WnR
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.