PSG Konsult Limited v Niemand (21/31519) [2022] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 October 2022)

PSG Konsult Limited v Niemand (21/31519) [2022] ZAGPJHC 815 (14 October 2022)

The applicant established a claim against the respondent exceeding R100.00, based on valid and enforceable taxed bills of costs. The respondent committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment debts and declaring his inability to pay, resulting in a nulla bona return. The respondent's bare assertion of solvency was unsupported by evidence, and his offer to pay in instalments did not demonstrate actual solvency. The applicant showed a reasonable prospect that sequestration would benefit creditors, as the respondent owns four immovable properties with no significant liabilities suggested. No special circumstances were proven by the respondent to justify the exercise of the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 815
Parties
Applicant: PSG Konsult Limited; Respondent: Nicolas Christiaan Niemand
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2022
Case Number
21/31519
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Final Order Hearing (extended Return Date)
Outcome
Final sequestration order granted against the respondent.
Judges
H M Viljoen
Legal Topics
Final Sequestration, Insolvency Act Section 12, Act of Insolvency, Advantage to Creditors
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Final Sequestration Insolvency Act Section 12 Act of Insolvency Advantage to Creditors

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

Parties

PSG Konsult Limited

Applicant

Nicolas Christiaan Niemand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Final Order Hearing (extended Return Date)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a claim against the respondent exceeding R100.00.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has committed an act of insolvency or is insolvent.
  3. 3 Whether there is reason to believe that sequestration will be to the advantage of creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a claim against the respondent exceeding R100.00, based on valid and enforceable taxed bills of costs. The respondent committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment debts and declaring his inability to pay, resulting in a nulla bona return. The respondent's bare assertion of solvency was unsupported by evidence, and his offer to pay in instalments did not demonstrate actual solvency. The applicant showed a reasonable prospect that sequestration would benefit creditors, as the respondent owns four immovable properties with no significant liabilities suggested. No special circumstances were proven by the respondent to justify the exercise of the...

Court Disposition

Final sequestration order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent is placed under final sequestration in the hands of the Master.
  • The costs of this application are costs in the administration of the respondent’s estate.