South Africa Case Law

Mokoteli and Another v The Body Corporate of Viling Villas Sectional Title Scheme (SS52/2012) and Others (16623/2021)

Mokoteli and Another v The Body Corporate of Viling Villas Sectional Title Scheme (SS52/2012) and Others (16623/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 114 (6 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16623/2021

Judge

B P Mantame

The Western Cape High Court rescinded a sequestration order granted by default, finding the applicants had shown good cause, solvency, and an arguable defence.

• Sequestration Rescission
• Default Judgment
• Condonation
• Community Of Property
• Abuse Of Process
• Sequestration-rescission

Matji v Van Straten NO and Others (28118/12)

Matji v Van Straten NO and Others (28118/12) [2022] ZAGPJHC 362 (27 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28118/12

Judge

Matsemela

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a final sequestration order, finding no sufficient cause, no reasonable explanation for delay, and no bona fide defence.

• Sequestration Rescission
• Wilful Default
• Sufficient Cause
• Delay In Application
• Rehabilitation Procedure
• Sequestration-rescission

Nedbank Limited v Spencer and Others (27051/2014)

Nedbank Limited v Spencer and Others (27051/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 172 (3 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27051/2014

Judge

G Webster

The High Court rescinded a sequestration order after finding material non-disclosure in a voluntary surrender application and awarded costs against the first and second respondents.

• Sequestration Rescission
• Advantage To Creditors
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Costs Of Sequestration
• Sequestration-rescission
• Voluntary-surrender

Zadi and Another v Body Corporate of Outeniqua and Others (55727/2010)

Zadi and Another v Body Corporate of Outeniqua and Others (55727/2010) [2011] ZAGPPHC 163 (14 September 2011)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55727/2010

Judge

B.R. Southwood

The court found that the sequestration order was obtained through abuse of process, as the first respondent failed to execute against immovable property, misled the court regarding the applicant's whereabouts, and did not ensure effective service. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default, demonstrated bona fide intentions, and established a valid defence to the sequestration. Exceptional circumstances were present, justifying rescission under section 149(2) of the Insolvency Act. The court determined that the applicants had made proper arrangements to pay all credito…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Rescission
• Abuse Of Process
• Substituted Service
• Costs Award
• Matrimonial Property Regime