Rayal Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Khan (076126/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 500 (13 May 2025)

Rayal Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Khan (076126/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 500 (13 May 2025)

The court found that the respondent’s late answering affidavit should be condoned in the interests of justice, as the applicant was not severely prejudiced and had filed a replying affidavit. On the merits, the applicant established a prima facie claim for a liquidated amount exceeding R90 million, supported by unchallenged evidence of fraudulent misappropriation by the respondent. The respondent’s defence consisted of blanket denials and unsupported allegations regarding the applicant’s deponent, which were rejected for lack of evidence and credibility. The respondent admitted participation in the unlawful scheme and receipt of proceeds, satisfying the requirements for provisional...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 500
Parties
Applicant: Rayal Industrial (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Haroon Abdul Magid Khan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2025
Case Number
076126/2023
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Hearing of Provisional Sequestration Application
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent’s estate.
Judges
Domingo, AJ
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Insolvency Act, Creditor Claims, Condonation of Late Filing, Fraudulent Misappropriation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Provisional Sequestration Insolvency Act Creditor Claims Condonation of Late Filing Fraudulent Misappropriation

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rayal Industrial (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Haroon Abdul Magid Khan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Hearing of Provisional Sequestration Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the late filing of the respondent’s answering affidavit should be condoned.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for a provisional sequestration order under section 10 of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has presented a valid defence to the sequestration application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent’s late answering affidavit should be condoned in the interests of justice, as the applicant was not severely prejudiced and had filed a replying affidavit. On the merits, the applicant established a prima facie claim for a liquidated amount exceeding R90 million, supported by unchallenged evidence of fraudulent misappropriation by the respondent. The respondent’s defence consisted of blanket denials and unsupported allegations regarding the applicant’s deponent, which were rejected for lack of evidence and credibility. The respondent admitted participation in the unlawful scheme and receipt of proceeds, satisfying the requirements for provisional...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted against the respondent’s estate.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the respondent’s answering affidavit is granted.
  • The estate of Haroon Abdul Magid Khan is placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High Court.