Astra Constantine Inc v Jones and Another (25801/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 238 (3 June 2025)
REPORTABILITY SCORE: 82/100 Insolvency — Provisional sequestration — Application for provisional sequestration of the estate of the first respondent based on a liquidated claim — First respondent's failure to satisfy a court judgment resulting in an act of insolvency — Court finding that provisional sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors due to potential recovery of assets — Application granted. The applicant, Astra Constantine Inc, sought the provisional sequestration of the estate of the first respondent, Allan George Jones, following a judgment against him for R1,108,837.63, which remained unpaid. The first respondent opposed the application, arguing the claim was invalid and that sequestration would not benefit creditors. The court held that the applicant had established a liquidated claim, the first respondent had committed an act of insolvency, and that provisional sequestration would likely benefit creditors by allowing for an investigation into the first respondent's financial dealings.
![Astra Constantine Inc v Jones and Another (25801/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 238 (3 June 2025)](https://junior-counsel-s3.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/blog_header_51723.2e16d0ba.fill-800x300.png)
Case Note
Astra Constantine Inc v Alan George Jones and Maree Jones — 2025 ZAWCHC 33 — 2025-06-03
Dates, Case No & Neutral Citation
2025-06-03; Case No 25801/2024; Not applicable
Court and Coram
High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town; SIPUNZI AJ
Reportability
Reported
HEADNOTE
Summary
Application for provisional sequestration of the estate of the first respondent.
Held
The estate of the first respondent is placed under provisional sequestration.
Cases, Statutes and Texts Cited
Cases: Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni City 2015(5) SA 600 (CC); Badenhorst v Northen Construction Enterprises (Pty) Ltd 1956 (2) SA 346 (T); Express Model Trading 289 CC v Dolphin Ridge Corporate 2015 (6) SA 224 (SCA); Secretary, Judicial Commission of Inquiry into allegations of State Capture v Zuma and Others 2021 (5) SA 327 (CC); Meskin & Co v Friedman 1948 (2) SA 555 (W)
Legislation: Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
Rules of Court: Uniform Rule 6(12)
THE FACTS
The applicant seeks provisional sequestration of the first respondent's estate due to unpaid debts totaling R1,108,837.63, following a judgment in favor of the applicant. The first respondent has sold immovable property and has other debts, including significant amounts owed to SARS. This situation raises concerns regarding the financial stability of the first respondent and the ability to satisfy outstanding obligations.
THE ISSUES
The primary issues before the court were whether the applicant has locus standi, whether the first respondent committed an act of insolvency, and whether provisional sequestration would benefit creditors. These questions are critical in determining the appropriateness of the sequestration application and the potential outcomes for all parties involved.
ANALYSIS
The court found that the applicant possesses a liquidated claim, which is essential for the application of sequestration. Furthermore, the first respondent was determined to have committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy a judgment. The court also concluded that provisional sequestration could provide a significant advantage to creditors, as it would allow for a thorough investigation of the first respondent's financial dealings, potentially uncovering assets that could be used to satisfy debts.
REMEDY
In light of the findings, the court ordered the provisional sequestration of the first respondent's estate. Additionally, a return date was set for further proceedings, allowing for the continuation of the legal process and consideration of any further evidence or arguments from the parties involved.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
The court applied principles from the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936, which outlines the requirements for sequestration. This includes the necessity of a liquidated claim and the demonstration of an act of insolvency, both of which were satisfied in this case. The application of these legal principles underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that creditors are protected and that insolvency proceedings are conducted fairly and transparently.