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

Case no: 21857/2011
In the matter between:

and

(Registration No: 2006/006029/07
AND
Case no: 2106/2012

(Identity No: )

and

(Registration No: 2006/006029/07

PROPERTY COMMISSION

STRUCTURED MEZZANINE INVESTMENTS

FOR APPLICANT 		Adv. A.P. Moller        Case no: 2106/12 
INSTRUCTED BY 	M.L. Littleford and Associates 
FOR INTERVENING PARTIES : 	Adv. J.F. Pretorius
INSTRUCTED BY:	Sim Botsi Attorneys

DATES OF HEARINGS	10 April 2012; 23 April 2012 and 14 May 2012

DATE OF JUDGMENT	12 June 2012?

REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN

CASE NO: 21857/2011

In the matter between:

and

(Registration Number: 2006/006029/07)

AND

Case no: 2106/2012

(Identity No: )

and

(Registration No: 2006/006029/07

PROPERTY COMMISSION

STRUCTURED MEZZANINE INVESTMENTS

JUDGMENT: 12 JUNE 2012

GAMBLE, J:

INTRODUCTION

BRP application and actively participated therein by way of opposition.

THE SMI PAYMENT APPLICATION

THE WINDING-UP APPLICATON

INTERPRETING THE COMPANIES ACT OF 2008

approach as follows:

ascertainable details that may be put up in relation to a trading company That approach is not warranted in the present case because the company's only asset is the incomplete building which has been financed by Nedbank and SMI.

business rescue to set out:
43.1. Brief reasons for the company finding itself commercially insolvent;

43.3. What the prospects are of raising the finances required to so complete the building;

terms:

departure.

factors which indicate the preference for BRP over winding up:

number of reasons which in my view find reasonance in this case. I therefore cite them in detail:

"or, if it is not possible for the company so to continue in existence, results in a better return for the company's creditors or shareholders than would result from the immediate liquidation of the company"...

CONCLUSION

ORDER

Case no. 2106/2012 (the business rescue application)

The application is dismissed with costs.

Case no. 21857/2011 (the winding-up application)
1. The Respondent, Bestvest 153 (Pty) Ltd, is placed under a provisional winding-up order.

2.1. A final winding-up order should not be granted;

3. Service of this order shall be effected. 
3.1   By the Sheriff upon:

GAMBLE, J