Sentraalwes (Koop) Bpk v Meester van die Hooggeregshof en Andere (241/90) [1992] ZASCA 9; 1992 (3) SA 86 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 39 (A) (5 March 1992)

Sentraalwes (Koop) Bpk v Meester van die Hooggeregshof en Andere (241/90) [1992] ZASCA 9; 1992 (3) SA 86 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 39 (A) (5 March 1992)

Section 88 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 does not apply to special notarial bonds over specified movable property that do not confer any preference, as such bonds do not grant a statutory or common law preference over the free residue of the insolvent estate. The appellant's claim, secured by a special notarial bond, was correctly treated as a concurrent claim by the trustees, notwithstanding their erroneous reliance on section 88. The legislative intent and previous judicial interpretation confirm that only bonds conferring preference are subject to section 88, and the special notarial bond in question does not meet this criterion.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 9
Parties
Appellant: Sentraalwes (Koöp) Bpk; Respondent: Meester van die Hooggeregshof; Respondent: Leslie Neil Sackstein N O; Respondent: George Frederick Wessels N O
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 1992
Case Number
241/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Review Application in the Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
C P Joubert, E M Grosskopf, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Insolvent Estate Distribution, Special Notarial Bonds, Preferent Claims, Interpretation of Statutes
Civil Procedure Land and Property Insolvent Estate Distribution Special Notarial Bonds Preferent Claims Interpretation of Statutes

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sentraalwes (Koöp) Bpk

Appellant

Meester van die Hooggeregshof

Respondent

Leslie Neil Sackstein N O

Respondent

George Frederick Wessels N O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Review Application in the Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is section 88 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 applicable to a special notarial bond over specified movable property not delivered to the bondholder?
  2. 2 Does such a special notarial bond confer any preference over concurrent creditors regarding the free residue of the insolvent estate?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 88 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 does not apply to special notarial bonds over specified movable property that do not confer any preference, as such bonds do not grant a statutory or common law preference over the free residue of the insolvent estate. The appellant's claim, secured by a special notarial bond, was correctly treated as a concurrent claim by the trustees, notwithstanding their erroneous reliance on section 88. The legislative intent and previous judicial interpretation confirm that only bonds conferring preference are subject to section 88, and the special notarial bond in question does not meet this criterion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.