Stander v Van den Berg (60296/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 7 (21 January 2016)

Stander v Van den Berg (60296/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 7 (21 January 2016)

The court found that, although the respondent was no longer the owner of property in the jurisdiction during the relevant period, he was actively involved in the listing of companies and held directorships in Gauteng. This ongoing business activity constituted 'carrying on business' within the jurisdiction for the purposes of section 149 of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's involvement was not casual or temporary but sustained over nearly two years. The applicant established that the respondent had other creditors and that sequestration would likely benefit them. The court was satisfied that all procedural requirements, including service by publication and email, were met. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Christiaan Stander; Respondent: Jakobus van den Berg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Case Number
60296/2013
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Provisional Sequestration Order
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted; respondent's estate placed under provisional sequestration.
Judges
Holland-Müter
Legal Topics
Insolvency Act Section 149, Sequestration, Jurisdiction, Advantage to Creditors
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Insolvency Act Section 149 Sequestration Jurisdiction 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Stander

Applicant

Jakobus van den Berg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Provisional Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the sequestration application under section 149 of the Insolvency Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the court during the relevant period.
  3. 3 Whether sequestration of the respondent's estate will be to the advantage of creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the respondent was no longer the owner of property in the jurisdiction during the relevant period, he was actively involved in the listing of companies and held directorships in Gauteng. This ongoing business activity constituted 'carrying on business' within the jurisdiction for the purposes of section 149 of the Insolvency Act. The respondent's involvement was not casual or temporary but sustained over nearly two years. The applicant established that the respondent had other creditors and that sequestration would likely benefit them. The court was satisfied that all procedural requirements, including service by publication and email, were met. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted; respondent's estate placed under provisional sequestration.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent is placed under provisional sequestration.
  • The respondent and any other party wishing to oppose final sequestration must show cause on 22 February 2016 why a final order should not be granted.