Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited v Intratrek Properties (Pty) Limited (27814/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 613 (20 May 2019)

Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited v Intratrek Properties (Pty) Limited (27814/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 613 (20 May 2019)

The court found that the jurisdictional challenge by the respondent was without merit. The Companies Act 1973, specifically section 12(1), continues to govern insolvency liquidations, and its dual jurisdiction regime remains in force due to the transitional provisions of the Companies Act 2008. Therefore, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 613
Parties
Applicant: Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Intratrek Properties (Pty) Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Case Number
27814/2018
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Application / Final Order
Outcome
The respondent is placed under final winding-up in the hands of the Master.
Judges
Sutherland
Legal Topics
Winding Up of Company, Jurisdiction of High Court, Companies Act 1973, Companies Act 2008, Postponement of Liquidation, Court Discretion
Commercial and Corporate Winding Up of Company Jurisdiction of High Court Companies Act 1973 Companies Act 2008 Postponement of Liquidation Court Discretion

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Intratrek Properties (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Winding Up Application / Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Gauteng Division has jurisdiction to grant a winding-up order over the respondent company.
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to postpone the liquidation application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the jurisdictional challenge by the respondent was without merit. The Companies Act 1973, specifically section 12(1), continues to govern insolvency liquidations, and its dual jurisdiction regime remains in force due to the transitional provisions of the Companies Act 2008. Therefore, the Gauteng Division has jurisdiction as the respondent's principal place of business is within its territory. The respondent's request for postponement was rejected because there was no credible evidence of imminent payment or rescue; the respondent's assertions were unsubstantiated and the business appeared to be the alter ego of its controlling mind, with no assets other than...

Court Disposition

The respondent is placed under final winding-up in the hands of the Master.

Orders

  • The respondent is placed under final winding-up in the hands of the Master.
  • The costs of this application are costs in the winding-up.