South Africa Case Law

Dibe and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (147/2024)

Dibe and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (147/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 318 (17 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

147/2024

Judge

Daffue

The court found that the applicants failed to make a timeous and formal application for postponement, did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their predicament, and had repeatedly delayed proceedings without fulfilling promises to pay. The applicants did not comply with procedural requirements for rescission, including service on creditors and the trustee, nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a bona fide defence. The application for postponement was dismissed as not being in the interests of justice, and the rescission application was dismissed for lack of merit and pr…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Proceedings
• Postponement
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Insolvency Act Section 149
• Uniform Rule 42

Prudential Authority v Ngubane and Another (9879/2021P)

Prudential Authority v Ngubane and Another (9879/2021P) [2024] ZAGPJHC 948 (25 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9879/2021P

Judge

Pietersen AJ

Rescission of provisional and final sequestration orders dismissed after the court found no reasonable default explanation, no bona fide defence, and no error.

• Banks Act Section 83
• Sequestration
• Service Of Process
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Insolvency Act Section 149
• Advantage To Creditors

Mare v De La Rey (NWK Limited Intervening) (89303/2016)

Mare v De La Rey (NWK Limited Intervening) (89303/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 784 (27 July 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89303/2016

Judge

Kubushi

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the sequestration application because the respondent resides in Koster, which falls within the jurisdiction of the North West High Court. Section 149(1) of the Insolvency Act governs jurisdiction in sequestration matters, and the applicant's reliance on common law grounds was misplaced. The provisional sequestration order and rule nisi issued by the North Gauteng High Court were therefore null and void. The court accepted that, in line with section 27 of the Superior Courts Act and relevant case law, the matter should be transferred to…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Jurisdiction
• Insolvency Act Section 149
• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Rule Nisi Discharge

Stander v Van den Berg (60296/2013)

Stander v Van den Berg (60296/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 7 (21 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60296/2013

Judge

Holland-Müter

The High Court granted a provisional sequestration order, finding jurisdiction under section 149 of the Insolvency Act and a prima facie advantage to creditors.

• Insolvency Act Section 149
• Sequestration
• Jurisdiction
• Advantage To Creditors
• Insolvency-act-section-149
• Advantage-to-creditors