In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

VELOHUIZEN. J

The appellant appeals to this Court against the magistrate's judgment of 6 December 2007 refusing to grant the appellant's unopposed application for an administration order in terms of section 74(1) of the Magistrate's Court Act 32 of 1944 (the Act).

"However, regard must be had to the fact that such an attorney, when appointed as an administrator, must act in such a capacity (as an attorney) throughout: he or she does not dispense with professional functions or duties at any point in the administration."

I do not agree with the magistrate's reasoning. In my view his reliance on the Africa Bank Limited v Melwyn Weiner judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal is misplaced. The judgment did not decide the question of the posting of security in terms of section 74E of the Act by a non-practising attorney in administration orders.   Section 74E(3) of the Act reads:-

"An administrator who is not an officer of the court or a practitioner shall, before a copy of the administration order is handed or sent to him by registered post, give security to the satisfaction of the Court and thereafter, as required by the Court, for the due and prompt payment by htm to the parties entitled thereto of all monies which come into his possession by virtue of his appointment as an administrator.''

1.     The applicant's estate is placed under administration in terms of the provisions of section 74 of Act 32 of 1944.
2.	Normal Woolf Shargey of ADMS Building Solutions (Pty) Limited is appointed as administrator of the applicant's estate.
3.	The said Norman Woolf Shargey is absolved from giving security for the administration of the applicant's estate.