IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 130616/2023
[ (1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) | OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
8 July 2025 Julian
Date T ENGELBRECHT
In the matter between:
SAYERS, JOHN MEYRICK WILLIAM APPLICANT
and
SNAID & MORRIS INCORPORATED RESPONDENT
This order is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected herein, duly
stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted electronically to the Parties/their
legal representatives by email. The Order is further uploaded to the electronic file of this
matter on Caselines by the Judge his/her secretary. The date of this Order is deemed to
be 8 July 2025.
JUDGMENT
ENGELBRECHT, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application wherein the Applicant applies for the provisional winding up of
the Respondent in terms of Section 344 (h) of the Companies Act, 61 of 1973,
because it is just and equitable. The Respondent opposes this application and
requests the dismissal of the application with attorney and client costs. Section 344
( h) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 reads as follows:
“A company may be wound up by the Court if:
(n) It appears to the Court that it is just and equitable that the Company
should be wound up”.
[2] During the argument, Advocate Hollander argued correctly so, that the application
should be considered in terms of Section 81(1)(c (ii) of the new Companies Act 71
of 2008 as amended, which reads as follows:
“81.(1) A court may order a solvent company to be wound up
if:
2
(¢) One or more of the company’s creditors have
applied to the court for an order to wind up the
company on the grounds that’
(ii) It is otherwise just and equitable for the
company to be wound up”.
[3] _ In terms of the joint practice note, the following issues are in dispute:
[3.1] | Whether the Applicant is a creditor of the Respondent.
[3/2] | Whether the Respondent is unable to pay its debt
[3.3] | Whether the winding-up of the Respondent would be just and equitable.
[3.4] | Whether the Respondent is to be wound up provisionally or finally.
[3.5] | Whether the application is to be dismissed.
[4] Asa result of the argument by Advocate Hollander, response by Advocate Newton
and the supplementary heads filed by Advocate Newton, | believe that the issues in
dispute has now increased also to determine whether the Applicant is entitled to
have this matter heard on a section in different legislation and whether this matter is
now a complete new matter placed before court and should therefore be dismissed
as requested by Advocate Newton.
APPLICANT'S CASE
[5] In the Founding Affidavit, the Applicant argues that he and Jackie Eckersley are
creditors in the insolvent estate of Slick Aircraft Company (Pty) Ltd(“Slick”) in
liquidation, which is stated to be common cause in the Joint Practice Note. The co-
liquidators, Johannes Hendrik Du Plessis and Krishna Ruben Vengadesan, were
granted consent by the Master to conduct an inquiry in terms of Sections 417 and
418 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973.
3