Tower Property Fund Limited v Burgczak (5663/24P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 61 (3 April 2025)

Tower Property Fund Limited v Burgczak (5663/24P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 61 (3 April 2025)

The respondent failed to provide a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the late filing of his answering affidavit, and no confirmatory affidavit was provided by his attorney. The respondent's explanation indicated that his own matter was not treated as important, which is unacceptable. The respondent also failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The applicant obtained judgment against the respondent, who exhausted all legal remedies, and the judgment remains unsatisfied. The sheriff's nulla bono return confirms that the respondent committed an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The applicant is a creditor with a liquidated claim exceeding R100,...

Citation
[2025] ZAKZPHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Tower Property Fund Limited; Respondent: Marek Stefan Burgczak
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 April 2025
Case Number
5663/24P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration and Condonation
Outcome
Respondent's application for condonation is dismissed. Respondent's estate is placed under provisional sequestration.
Judges
Ncube
Legal Topics
Provisional Sequestration, Condonation, Act of Insolvency, Nulla Bono Return
Civil Procedure Land and Property Provisional Sequestration Condonation Act of Insolvency Nulla Bono Return

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tower Property Fund Limited

Applicant

Marek Stefan Burgczak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Provisional Sequestration and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of his answering affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has committed an act of insolvency as contemplated by section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is a creditor with a liquidated claim and whether sequestration will advantage creditors.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to provide a reasonable or acceptable explanation for the late filing of his answering affidavit, and no confirmatory affidavit was provided by his attorney. The respondent's explanation indicated that his own matter was not treated as important, which is unacceptable. The respondent also failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The applicant obtained judgment against the respondent, who exhausted all legal remedies, and the judgment remains unsatisfied. The sheriff's nulla bono return confirms that the respondent committed an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The applicant is a creditor with a liquidated claim exceeding R100,...

Court Disposition

Respondent's application for condonation is dismissed. Respondent's estate is placed under provisional sequestration.

Orders

  • The respondent’s application for condonation of late delivery of his answering affidavit is dismissed.
  • The respondent’s estate is placed under provisional sequestration in the hands of the Master of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg.