---

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

(1)    REPORTABLE:                                              YES/NO 

(2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES           YES/NO

(3)    REVISED:

28 July 2021

 

CASE NUMBER: 25067/2020

In the matter between :

CLOETE MURRAY N.O.                                                                                              Applicant

and

RAMPHELE, TSHEPISO DAVID                                                                                Respondent

([….])

 

JUDGMENT

Heard on:                                28 July 2021

Judgment handed down: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 28 July 2021.

 

VAN ZYL AJ

1.           For the sake of convenience, I refer to the parties as cited in the main application.

2.           The Respondent, Mr Ramphele, has applied for leave to appeal against my judgment and order of 14 June 2021 in terms of which I placed Mr Ramphele’s estate under provisional sequestration, returnable on 2 August 2021.

3.           Section 150(1) of the Insolvency Act (Act 24 of 1936)[1] provides that a person aggrieved by a final order of sequestration or by an order setting aside an order of provisional sequestration, may appeal against the order. The orders mentioned are the only two orders that are appealable in terms of the Act.^[2]

4.           Section 150 of the Insolvency Act does not permit an appeal against a provisional order of sequestration.^[3]  It follows that a decision granting a provisional order of sequestration is not appealable.^[4]

5.           In the premises the application for leave to appeal cannot succeed.

6.           In paragraph 10 of the application of the notice of application for leave to appeal, Mr Ramphele saw it fit to accuse the applicant, Mr Murray, of litigating in a dishonest fashion.  The allegations do not constitute a ground for appeal, are irrelevant and inappropriate. Counsel for Mr Murray requested that I dismiss the application on a punitive scale given these allegations. However, since no prior notice had been given to Mr Ramphele that a punitive cost order would be sought, I am declining to make such an order.  

ORDER:

In the premises I make the following order:

1.                      The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

2.                      The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to  appeal.

 

                                                                        

DIRK R. VAN ZYL

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

Appearances:
For the Respondent:	Adv P. W. Makhambeni Adv Shai
Instructed by:	Ramphele Attorneys

 

 

 

 

For the Applicant:                 Adv Lourens

Instructed by:                        Roestoff Attorneys

 

 

---