Turner Morris One (Pty) Ltd v Steyn (2024/018423) [2025] ZAGPJHC 455 (12 May 2025)

Turner Morris One (Pty) Ltd v Steyn (2024/018423) [2025] ZAGPJHC 455 (12 May 2025)

The court found that the respondent provided a detailed and corroborated account disputing the existence of the alleged debt, supported by documentary evidence and third-party affidavits. The applicant failed to address the substance of these allegations and did not provide proof of the loan purportedly made on 3 March 2023. The respondent's version was not bald or lacking in particularity, and objectively constituted a bona fide and reasonable defence. The statutory requirements regarding citation and marital status were not fully complied with, but the respondent was properly before the court. The application for sequestration was therefore dismissed. Regarding costs, the respondent's...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 455
Parties
Plaintiff: Turner Morris One (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Willem Hendrik Steyn
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2025
Case Number
2024/018423
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for sequestration dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.
Judges
Sawma AJ
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Acknowledgement of Debt, Bona Fide Dispute, Oral Loan Agreement, Practice Directive Costs
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Sequestration Acknowledgement of Debt Bona Fide Dispute Oral Loan Agreement Practice Directive Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Turner Morris One (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Willem Hendrik Steyn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's indebtedness to the applicant is established on the evidence presented.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has disputed the debt on bona fide and reasonable grounds.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has complied with statutory requirements regarding citation and marital status.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent provided a detailed and corroborated account disputing the existence of the alleged debt, supported by documentary evidence and third-party affidavits. The applicant failed to address the substance of these allegations and did not provide proof of the loan purportedly made on 3 March 2023. The respondent's version was not bald or lacking in particularity, and objectively constituted a bona fide and reasonable defence. The statutory requirements regarding citation and marital status were not fully complied with, but the respondent was properly before the court. The application for sequestration was therefore dismissed. Regarding costs, the respondent's...

Court Disposition

Application for sequestration dismissed; each party to bear its own costs.

Orders

  • The application for the sequestration of the respondent is dismissed.
  • Each party is to bear its own costs.