Swart v Starbuck and Others (CCT153/16) [2017] ZACC 23; 2017 (10) BCLR 1325 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 370 (CC) (29 June 2017)

Swart v Starbuck and Others (CCT153/16) [2017] ZACC 23; 2017 (10) BCLR 1325 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 370 (CC) (29 June 2017)

Condonation for late filing was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and caused no prejudice. Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant’s damages claim under section 82(8) of the Insolvency Act was premised on the absence of valid authorisation by the Master, but the Master’s authorisation for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZACC 23
Parties
Applicant: Nicolaas Johannes Swart; Respondent: Conrad Alexander Starbuck; Respondent: James Henry van Rensburg; Respondent: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2017
Case Number
CCT 153/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following Dismissal of Damages Claim in High Court
Outcome
Application for condonation granted. Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Insolvency Act Section 80bis, Trustee Authorisation, Administrative Action Review, Sale of Insolvent Property, Condonation, Statutory Damages
Civil Procedure Land and Property Administrative Law Insolvency Act Section 80bis Trustee Authorisation Administrative Action Review Sale of Insolvent Property Condonation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicolaas Johannes Swart

Applicant

Conrad Alexander Starbuck

Respondent

James Henry van Rensburg

Respondent

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, Following Dismissal of Damages Claim in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted on the statutory damages claim under section 82(8) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the sale of the applicant's property was lawfully authorised under section 80bis of the Insolvency Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for late filing was granted as the delay was satisfactorily explained and caused no prejudice. Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant’s damages claim under section 82(8) of the Insolvency Act was premised on the absence of valid authorisation by the Master, but the Master’s authorisation for the sale of the properties was legally valid and had not been set aside. The sale agreements were subject to suspensive conditions and only became binding upon fulfilment, which occurred after the trustees’ appointment and the Master’s authorisation. The applicant failed to challenge the Master’s authorisation by judicial review, and no substantial injustice was demonstrated....

Court Disposition

Application for condonation granted. Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.