About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 247
|
|
Firstrand Bank Limited v Ronson Trading (Pty) Ltd (13145/2010) [2010] ZAGPPHC 247 (17 December 2010)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE
NO.: 13145/2010
DATE:17/12/2010
In
the matter between:
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED
…..............................................................
APPLICANT
v
RONSON
TRADING (PTY)
LTD
...............................................................
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WEBSTER
J
1.
This
is an application for the liquidation of the respondent. The
application is based on a written loan facility agreement entered
into between the applicant and the respondent on 28 August, 2007, and
a deed of suretyship dated 30 November, 2007, which the respondent
executed in favour of the applicant and on Golden Tau Developments
(PTY) LTD.
2.
It
is not disputed that the amounts claimed were indeed lent and
advanced by the applicant as set out in its founding affidavit
in the
respective sums of R5 500 000 on 28 January, 2008 and Rl 493 400 in
accordance with the aforesaid loan facility agreement.
3.
It
is further not disputed that the funds so advanced to the two
entities were repayable within eighteen (18) months from the date
the
said funds were advanced. I can find nothing in the loan agreement
(referred to in paragraph 1
supra)
that
suggests that such repayments were subject to any suspensive
conditions.
4.
The
respondent offers
t
as
a defence the assertion that the money advanced by the applicant was
for a "development loan" and the intention of
the parties
was that it would be repaid after the completion of the development
with the proceeds of units sold in such development.
5.
The
respondent further avers that the applicant should have recovered the
money owing by it from Double Ring (PTY) LTD, the company
in whose
name the immovable property forming the subject matter of the claim
for R5 million is registered. It is further averred
that the
respondent is well-able to pay as
"...Ronson
Mozambique,
SA,
a
company within the Ronson Group, has been appointed as development
manager in terms of a contract vaiued R120 mi//ion
...[and]...A
first
invoice was issued by Respondent in the amount of US $ 2 886 464.59
in respect of
'(sic)
the
project..."
6.
It
is further averred that Golden Tau Developments (PTY) LTD, another
company within the Ronson Group, received an offer for the
purchase
of its immovable property in an amount of R110 million..."
7.1
There
is no doubt whatsoever that the respondent is indebted to the
applicant. The respondent bears the onus, in such circumstances,
to
demonstrate that the indebtedness is being disputed
bona
fide
and
on reasonable grounds (Robson v Wax Works (PTY) Ltd 2001(3) SA 1117
(C) at para 15, page 1122 H-I).
7.2
The
respondent's resistance in the matter falls far short of
demonstrating any reasonable grounds in disputing its
indebtedness. That one or other companies within its group is
possessed of adequate funds to pay the amount due to the applicant
does not constitute a valid resistance to this application. It is my
considered view that there is no "genuine dispute"
or
"bona
fide
dispute"
between the parties.
8.
It is accordingly ordered that the respondent be and is hereby
placed under final order of winding up.
G.
WEBSTER
JUDGE
IN THE HIGH COURT