Liebenberg v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (1913/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 111 (14 November 2025)

Case Note

Baremd Jacobus Liebenberg v. Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others
[2025] ZANCHC 123
Date Delivered: 14 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications in insolvency law, particularly the principles of rescinding a final sequestration order. It clarifies the applicant's burden to demonstrate erroneous issuance under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court and addresses procedural expectations surrounding rescission applications. The decision underscores that a litigant's absence from proceedings must be unintentional to benefit from rescission provisions, thereby promoting an understanding of the interaction between intentional non-participation and judicial discretion in insolvency matters.

Cases Cited

• Myburgh Transport v Botha t/a SA Truck Bodies 1991 (3) SA 310 (NmS)
• Leko/kwane and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development [2006] ZACC 19 (CC); 2006 JDR 0897 (CC); 2007 (3) BCLR 280 (CC)
• Majakathata Long Distance Taxi Association and Another v MEC for Police, Road and Transport, Free State Province and Others [2019] JOL 44884 (FB)
• Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital and Another (Open Democratic Advice Centre as Amicus Curiae) 2008 (2) SA 472 (CC)
• Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others [2021] ZACC 28 (CC); 2021 (11) BCLR 1263 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
• Uniform Rules of Court

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court
• Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case involves Mr. Barend Jacobus Liebenberg’s application for the rescission of a final sequestration order issued against him. The court found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a), particularly noting that the orders sought were not granted in his absence, as he had chosen not to contest the sequestration application. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

Key Issues

The court addressed several key legal issues:

1. Whether the applicant provided sufficient grounds for rescission of the final sequestration order.
2. The appropriateness of the postponement of the rescission hearing.
3. Whether the applicant's claims regarding fraud and misinformation were credible enough to warrant rescission.

Held

The court held that the application for the rescission of the final sequestration order was dismissed, affirming that the applicant did not substantiate claims of an erroneously granted order nor demonstrate that the order infringed upon procedural fairness. The court further indicated that the delay in bringing the rescission application was unjustifiable.

THE FACTS

The applicant, Barend Jacobus Liebenberg, was finally sequestrated on 11 October 2024 without contesting the sequestration application, despite being duly served with the necessary documents. On 10 December 2024, he filed for rescission of the sequestration order, accompanied by a request for condonation for the late filing. The application was opposed by Standard Bank, which had initiated the sequestration based on the applicant's alleged failure to honor his debts.

Subsequently, the applicant made a motion to postpone the rescission hearing without following procedural rules for such a request. During the initial hearing, Liebenberg asserted that he was misled into believing he was actively contesting the sequestration due to advice from an organization called “You are Law.” His defense claimed that they influenced him not to repay debts.

Despite these claims, Standard Bank maintained that the applicant's default lacked merit and was a matter of choice rather than circumstance. The sequence of events outlined a clear timeline where the applicant actively chose non-participation in the legal proceedings leading to his sequestration.

THE ISSUES

The court was faced with several legal questions:

1. Did Mr. Liebenberg's failure to oppose the sequestration application amount to a valid ground for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a)?
2. Was the application for the postponement of the rescission hearing justified?
3. Did the applicant provide credible evidence supporting claims of being a victim of fraud in the process leading to his sequestration?

ANALYSIS

In its analysis, the court focused on the applicant's electoral choice to abstain from the proceedings, emphasizing that Rule 42(1)(a) is designed to protect those unable to participate, not those opting to remain absent. The court underscored the necessity for applicants in rescission cases to act promptly upon becoming aware of judgments that affect them, especially in cases of sequestration where delays can severely impact all stakeholders involved.

The court scrutinized the applicant's claims regarding the supposed fraudulent influence of “You are Law,” finding that these assertions did not sufficiently justify his absence. The conclusion drawn was that not only did Mr. Liebenberg fail to file his opposition papers in time, but his reliance on advice from a questionable entity demonstrated a lack of due diligence on his part. Additionally, the court upheld that there were no exceptional circumstances presented that warranted the rescission of the final sequestration order, thereby supporting the finality of judicial determinations within the insolvency framework.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the application for the rescission of the final sequestration order and the request for condonation regarding the late filing. The order was made with costs, including the counsel's fees, directing them to be paid according to Scale B of Rule 69(7) of the Uniform Rules of Court.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principles established in this case include:

1. An applicant for rescission must prove that the order was erroneously sought or granted, particularly when absent from proceedings, and that the absence was not an act of volition.
2. The burden is on the applicant to substantiate any claims of fraud or misinformation as a defense to the order of sequestration.
3. Prompt action is crucial in rescission applications, especially in insolvency matters where delays have significant consequences, not only for the parties involved but for the administration of justice.

Furthermore, this case establishes the precedent that tactical maneuvers, such as postponements, require robust justifications and procedural adherence if they are to be favorably considered by the courts.