REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2023-11660
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
ABSA BANK LTD APPLICANT
and
NUBIAN TOUCH (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
JOHANN GAUTSCHI, AJ
[1] The Applicant seeks an order for the final winding up of the respondent. Today
is the return day of provisional winding up order which was granted on 30 April
2025 in the absence of any appearance by the Respondent or the Respondent’s
attorneys or counsel.
[2] Yesterday, 4 November 2025, Ms Mpho Clementine Mathope, the sole director
of the Respondent filed an application for condonation of the late filing of a notice
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
5 November 2025 _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
to oppose the final liquidation of the Respondent. Her application for
condonation was in the form of an affidavit in which she explained that the reason
for the delay was her impression, based on the advice of the Respondent ’s
former attorney of record, that “the matter could be resolved commercially
without the need to incur further litigation costs ” and that “engaging with the
Applicant directly and continuing efforts to regularise the account would be the
most prudent course of action in support of the Respondent’s financial recovery.”.
She further explained that due to the Respondent’s precarious financial position
“the Respondent lacked the means to properly brief attorneys and obtain the
necessary supporting documentation for a comprehensive opposition”.
[3] The remainder of her affidavit describes health issues and hospitalisation which
she had experienced and submits that a three -month indulgence should be
granted to “facilitate investor access to the property ”, “secure investments or a
funded offer ” and “satisfy creditors in a manner that preserves – rather than
destroys – value”. It concludes with a request that the Respondent be “given an
opportunity to either sell at market related value or to conclude an investment
opportunity that will be beneficial to all Creditors.”.
[4] Ms Mathope also filed a second affidavit which essentially repeats the contents
of her above-mentioned application for condonation.
[5] Ms Mathope appeared in person in the office of my Court secretary for this
application which was heard virtually on Microsoft Teams. I allowed Ms Mathope
to appear and make submissions initially in support of her application for
condonation and, after I dismissed the application, also as to any reasons why a
final order should not be granted. I did so on the basis that as a director of the
Respondent she had an interest in opposing the grant of a final winding- up
order.1
[6] There is no substance in the application for condonation and no merit in seeking
order.1
[6] There is no substance in the application for condonation and no merit in seeking
the indulgence sought. The three-month indulgence sought amounts to no more
than a plea ad misericordiam. As pointed out by counsel for the Applicant, the
Respondent had not in its answering affidavit opposing the provisional winding
1 Absa Bank Ltd v Rhebokskloof (Pty) Ltd and Others1993 (4) SA 436 (C)
up order disputed the debt s owed to the applicant , nor had it disputed that the
Respondent is insolvent. Also at this stage Ms Mathope’s application for
condonation did not dispute the debts owed by the Respondent to the Applicant
nor did she dispute that the Respondent is insolvent. In the circumstances I
dismissed the application for condonation.
[7] I then gave Ms Mathope, as sole director of the Respondent and thus an
interested party, an opportunity to make further submissions as to why a final
winding up order should not be granted. Ms Mathope still did not dispute the
debts owed by the Respondent to the Applicant , nor did she dispute that the
Respondent is insolvent.
[8] The Applicant filed a service affidavit deposed to by an attorney who is a director
of the Applicant’s attorney of record. It describes, with supporting annexures ,
that the service requirements of the provisional winding up order rule nisi had
been complied with. In addition, the practice note filed by counsel for the
Applicant set out all the issues which are common cause , cross-referenced to
the relevant paragraphs in the answering affidavit which had been filed by the
Respondent in opposition to the application for provisional winding-up.
[9] In the premises I am satisfied that the requirements for the granting of a final
winding-up order have been satisfied and that a final winding-up order should be
granted.
ORDER:
[1] The Respondent is placed into final winding-up in the hands of the Master of the
High Court.
[2] Consequent upon the granting of the relief referred to in paragraph 1 above, the
Master of the above Honourable Court is directed and authorised to forthwith
take such steps as are necessary to appoint a liquidator in respect of the winding-
up of the Respondent.
[3] The costs of this application and of the application for provisional winding-up are
to be costs in the winding up proceedings.
___________________________
Johann Gautschi
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
For the Applicant: Adv K Mitchell
Instructed by: Tim du Toit Inc. (charmaine@timdutoit.co.za)
(011-274 9800)
For the Respondent: No appearance.
Appearance by interested party in person : Ms Mpho Clementine Mathope, sole
director of the Respondent
(No contact details provided)
Date of hearing: 5 November 2025
Date of Judgment: 5 November 2025