Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited v Yusuf (27815/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 615 (20 May 2019)

Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited v Yusuf (27815/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 615 (20 May 2019)

The applicant has placed sufficient material before the court to warrant a provisional sequestration order. The respondent's involvement in multiple companies suggests the possession of means, and the investigation facilitated by a provisional order may reveal assets for the benefit of creditors. The test for advantage to creditors does not require proof of existing assets, only a reasonable prospect that some benefit may result. The court exercises its discretion in favour of granting a provisional order to allow further inquiry into the respondent's financial affairs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 615
Parties
Applicant: Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ibrahim Sildsky Yusuf
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2019
Case Number
27815/2018
Procedural Posture
Sequestration Application / Provisional Order on Application for Sequestration
Outcome
Provisional sequestration order granted.
Judges
R Sutherland
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Advantage to Creditors, Insolvency Act Section 19c
Civil Procedure Sequestration Advantage to Creditors Insolvency Act Section 19c

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wild & Marr (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Ibrahim Sildsky Yusuf

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Sequestration Application / Provisional Order on Application for Sequestration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Has the applicant established that sequestration of the respondent's estate will be to the advantage of creditors?
  2. 2 Is there sufficient material to justify a provisional sequestration order?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has placed sufficient material before the court to warrant a provisional sequestration order. The respondent's involvement in multiple companies suggests the possession of means, and the investigation facilitated by a provisional order may reveal assets for the benefit of creditors. The test for advantage to creditors does not require proof of existing assets, only a reasonable prospect that some benefit may result. The court exercises its discretion in favour of granting a provisional order to allow further inquiry into the respondent's financial affairs.

Court Disposition

Provisional sequestration order granted.

Orders

  • The estate of the respondent is placed under provisional sequestration.
  • The respondent and any other interested party are called upon to show cause on 27 June 2019 why a final sequestration order should not be granted.