IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

In this matter the applicant firm of attorneys seeks a provisional sequestration order against the respondent, its former client. The claim relates to professional services rendered to the respondent in the sum of R34 247,65.

In response to the summons which was issued in this matter the respondent directed a letter to the applicant in which she stated, without disputing the amount of the claim, that she could not pay it. She undertook however to pay it off in payments of R400 per month.

The founding affidavit refers also to a subsequent fetter which was received from the University of Steflenbosch Legaf Aid Clinic, now representing the respondent, in which it was again stated that she was not in a financial position to discharge what was referred to, without any debate as regards the quantum owing, "die uitstaande skuld". She thereupon offered again to pay off a limited sum per month.

On 9 September 2008, when this application first proceeded before court, an order was made by agreement directing that it be heard today, and agreeing times for the filing of an opposing affidavit and a replying affidavit.

Counsel for the applicant has sought a provisional sequestration order, on the basis that the trite requirements for such an order have been made out. He points to the various acts of insolvency, and furthermore to the failure by the respondent to file any opposing affidavit, as she had agreed to do, to set out any viable defence to the matter. Counsel for the respondent however has sought a postponement of the application in order for the determination of the rescission proceedings to take place. The question which arises in these circumstances, there being no material answer to the provisional sequestration application itself, is whether such a deferment is to be granted in all the circumstances of the matter.

As I have indicated the application for postponement is brought inexcusably and inexplicably late. It is not brought on a basis of urgency, no case is made out for urgency, it is redolent of an attempt to procure a delay at any cost - meaning, in particular, at the cost of the admitted claim held by the applicant.

In the circumstances the application for postponement is dismissed with costs and the application for a provision order of sequestration against the respondent is granted with costs. There will be the usual order as to service.