Agri South Africa NPC v Paulsmeier (20910/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 530 (17 November 2025)

Case Note

AGRI SOUTH AFRICA NPC v MARK ERWIN PAULSMEIER
Case No: 20910/2024
Judgment Date: 17 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it deals with significant principles surrounding the sequestration of a debtor's estate under South African law, particularly the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. The court's decision illustrates the procedural requirements necessary to apply for sequestration and highlights the conditions under which provisional orders may be granted. The judgment also touches on civil procedure issues regarding compliance with local rules and the critical nature of abiding by deadlines set forth by practice directions.

Cases Cited

• Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA)
• Eskom v Soweto City Council 1992 (2) SA 703 (W)
• Sewpersad and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (EC14/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 435 (9 December 2024)
• Braithwaite v Gilbert 1984 (4) SA 717 (W)
• Kyle & Others v Maritz & Pieterse Inc [2002] 3 All SA 223 (T)
• Bidvest Bank Limited v Surtee (2024/073198; 2024/073203) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1134 (10 November 2025)
• ABSA Bank Limited v Cupido N.O and Another (8898/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 19 (31 January 2024)

Legislation Cited

• Insolvency Act 24 of 1936

Rules of Court Cited

• Western Cape Practice Directive 30(1)
• Uniform Rule 33(4)

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court issued a provisional order for the sequestration of Mark Erwin Paulsmeier's estate, following an application by AGRI South Africa NPC. The court determined that the applicant had established its claims, the respondent had committed acts of insolvency, and there was sufficient reason to believe that sequestration would benefit creditors.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed included: 1. Whether the applicant had a valid claim for the sequestration application. 2. Whether there were any acts of insolvency committed by the respondent. 3. Whether there was sufficient evidence to suggest that sequestration would benefit creditors. 4. The importance of compliance with procedural rules in insolvency matters.

Held

The court held that the applicant had established a prima facie case for sequestration by demonstrating both the existence of a valid claim and the respondent's acts of insolvency. The court also found that there was a reasonable prospect that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors.

THE FACTS

The applicant, AGRI South Africa NPC, sought the provisional sequestration of the respondent's estate, claiming outstanding costs from litigative actions against the respondent totaling R527,502.25. The respondent opposed the application, contending that he had already settled the debt, but no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim. Furthermore, he stated that he was unable to pay the debts due to various ongoing litigations, and he previously attempted to establish a multi-billion Rand donation for drought relief, but this did not materialize.

The court noted multiple attempts by the sheriff to execute judgment on the respondent's personal assets, each ending in a 'nulla bona' return signifying the absence of sufficient property to satisfy the claims. The respondent was married out of community of property, but his spouse’s involvement became a relevant factor during the proceedings.

THE ISSUES

The court needed to decide whether the applicant had met the necessary legal thresholds for: 1. Establishing that it had a legitimate claim for the debts owed by the respondent. 2. Demonstrating that the respondent committed acts of insolvency as required under the Insolvency Act. 3. Providing a legal basis suggesting that sequestration was warranted for the benefit of the creditors.

ANALYSIS

In determining whether to grant the application for sequestration, the court meticulously evaluated the evidence that the applicant had presented. The court found that the applicant met the criteria set out in section 9(1) of the Insolvency Act since it possessed a lawful claim against the respondent and could sufficiently demonstrate that the respondent’s lack of payment constituted acts of insolvency.

The respondent's arguments about having settled debts were not accompanied by verifiable evidence. Instead, the court highlighted the importance of primary facts sufficient to raise a bona fide dispute. Despite asserting his financial status, the respondent could not rebut the prima facie evidence established by the applicant, particularly the nulla bona returns from law enforcement indicating a lack of assets.

The court also examined procedural compliance, noting the applicant’s request for condonation for failure to notify the respondent's spouse in accordance with local rules. The court determined this non-compliance did not bar the sequestration given that the spouse was ultimately aware of the proceedings and had shown no interest in contesting the matter.

REMEDY

The court ordered that: 1. The estate of Mark Erwin Paulsmeier be placed under provisional sequestration, pending a return date for creditor concerns. 2. The respondent and other interested parties were required to show cause at a later date why this provisional order should not be made final. 3. Costs incurred up to the hearing excluding certain periods were to be included in the administration costs of the insolvent estate.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The case established several legal principles regarding the sequestration of estates in South African law, including: 1. The necessity for an applicant to demonstrate valid claims and acts of insolvency. 2. Importance of compliance with procedural obligations, although non-compliance may be excused under certain circumstances. 3. An assessment of whether sequestration would provide a benefit to creditors, not requiring a high threshold of certainty, but merely a reasonable prospect. 4. Understanding that the spouse of a debtor married out of community of property may not need to be joined as a respondent unless their interest is directly affected.