Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Bopape and Another (Reasons) (2024/089623) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1170 (19 November 2025)

Case Note

Voltex (Pty) Ltd v Bopape, Nathan Lebogang
Case Number: 2024-089623
Heard: 27 October 2025
Delivered: 19 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its implications for insolvency proceedings in South Africa, particularly regarding the requirements for final sequestration orders. The court reaffirmed critical aspects surrounding the establishment of acts of insolvency and the requisite advantages for creditors when a sequestration application is presented. This case is significant as it underscores the necessity for individuals facing insolvency to provide credible evidence of their financial circumstances, particularly the potential impacts on creditors.

The decision serves as a clear warning to respondents in similar situations that failure to adhere to court directives or to substantiate claims regarding their financial position can lead to adverse outcomes, such as the confirmation of sequestration orders. In essence, it reinforces the legal principle that the burden of proof lies with the respondent to demonstrate any alleged advantages of non-sequestration.

Cases Cited

1. Stratford and Others v Investec Bank Ltd and Another 2015 (3) BCLR 358 (CC); 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC); (2015) 36 ILJ 583 (CC) (19 December 2014)
2. Meskin & Co v Friedman 1948 (2) SA 555 (W)

Legislation Cited

• Insolvency Act 24 of 1936

Rules of Court Cited

• No specific rules of court cited in this matter.

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this judgment, the High Court confirmed a provisional sequestration order against Nathan Lebogang Bopape, following an application by Voltex (Pty) Ltd. The court found that the respondent had committed an act of insolvency by failing to produce attachable assets when a writ of execution was executed against him. Although the respondent alleged that he would be able to liquidate properties held in deceased estates to settle his debts, he failed to substantiate these claims with sufficient evidence. Consequently, the court determined that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include whether the applicant could establish the act of insolvency by the respondent, whether the respondent's claims regarding the liquidation of deceased estates had merit, and ultimately, whether the sequestration of the respondent's estate would be to the advantage of creditors.

Held

The court held that the applicant successfully established both the act of insolvency and the potential advantage of sequestration to creditors. The respondent’s failure to provide a supplementary affidavit or any credible evidence to rebut the claims made against him led the court to confirm the provisional sequestration order.

THE FACTS

The case revolves around a debt of R2,772,861.76 owed by Nathan Lebogang Bopape to Voltex (Pty) Ltd, which arose from goods sold and delivered to Lebogang Electrical Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd. Despite multiple acts, including a judgment granted against the respondent, which had remained unpaid for over six years, no payment or valid defense was presented.

Upon executing a writ of execution, the Sheriff returned a nulla bona, indicating there were no attachable assets, which established an act of insolvency under Section 8(b) of the Insolvency Act. The respondent contended that he was in the process of liquidating properties in the deceased estate of his parents, arguing that this would enable him to settle the debt. However, his claims were unsupported by concrete evidence such as asset valuations or proof of sales.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether the provisional sequestration order should be confirmed. This necessitated an analysis of whether the applicant had established the requisite legal thresholds: a liquidated claim, an act of insolvency, and a reasonable prospect that sequestration would benefit creditors. The court further had to assess the sufficiency of the evidence provided by the respondent to counter the applicant's assertions.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the evidence presented, noting significant discrepancies between the respondent's assertions and the documentation available, particularly regarding the alleged value and sale of properties in the deceased estates. The respondent was granted multiple opportunities to provide additional information and to substantiate his claims but failed to comply with the court's requests.

Crucially, the respondent did not disclose any information about his personal financial situation, such as assets or liabilities, nor did he provide any evidence supporting his assertions regarding the value of the properties. The court emphasized the importance of this omission, noting that it rendered his defense insufficient. The ability to prove one's solvency is a critical component of rebutting an application for sequestration, and the failure to do so can lead to irreversible judgments in insolvency cases.

The court concluded that since the respondent could not provide credible evidence to counter the claims of insolvency or establish the advantages of maintaining his financial status, the reasonable prospect of advantage for creditors via sequestration was satisfied. Furthermore, this laid the groundwork for the granting of the final sequestration order.

REMEDY

The remedy provided by the court was the confirmation of the provisional sequestration order, placing Nathan Lebogang Bopape's estate under final sequestration. This decision allows a trustee to take control of the insolvency proceedings, investigate the respondent's financial affairs, and seek recovery for the creditors.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principles established in this case include the following:

• An act of insolvency can be established through a nulla bona return, reflecting an individual's inability to pay debts.
• The burden of proof lies with the respondent to challenge an applicant’s claims and demonstrate why sequestration would not be advantageous to creditors.
• Even vague or unsupported claims regarding potential asset sales in deceased estates do not suffice to rebut an application for sequestration.
• The threshold for establishing an advantage to creditors in sequestration matters is relatively low, only requiring reasonable prospects of some pecuniary benefit to creditors.

This case underscores the rigor with which courts will assess claims of insolvency and the critical requirement for individuals to substantiate their financial claims convincingly.