REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA



IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NUMBER:2024-089623




VOLTEX (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
(Registration Number: 1964/006740/07)

AND

BOPAPE, NATHAN LEBOGANG RESPONDENT

Heard: 27 October 2025
Delivered: 19 November 2025
Headnote: Insolvency – Sequestration – Final order – Act of insolvency established by
nulla bona return – Respondent granted indulgence to file supplementary affidavit but
failed to do so – Alleged reliance on sale of properties in deceased estates irrelevant and

(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO
(3) REVISED: YES / NO

19 November 2025 __________________________
DATE SIGNATURE

unsubstantiated – No disclosure of respondent’s own financial position – Advantage to
creditors reasonably established – Provisional order confirmed.


WRITTEN REASONS

WINDELL J:
Explanatory note: On 27 October 2025 this court confirmed a provisional sequestration
order and placed the respondent under final sequestration. These are the reasons.
Introduction
[1] This is the return day of a provisional sequestration order granted against the
estate of the respondent on 22 May 2025. The applicant seeks a final order of
sequestration. The application originally included the respondent’s wife, but the applicant
withdrew the proceedings against her on 25 November 2024, and the matter now
concerns the respondent only.
[2] When the matter initially came before court on 1 September 2025, the respondent
appeared in person. At that stage no answering affidavit had been filed, despite the
application having been personally served on him almost a year earlier. In the interests
of justice, he was granted an indulgence to file an answering affidavit during the week of
the hearing.
[3] The respondent availed himself of this opportunity and delivered an answering
affidavit on 2 September 2025. The applicant filed its replying affidavit on 3 September

2025. When the matter resumed, it was apparent that several allegations made by the
respondent were contradicted by documentary evidence disclosed in the replying
affidavit, including Deeds Office searches and correspondence regarding the purported
sale of immovable properties.
[4] Given these discrepancies, I granted a further indulgence to the respondent to file
a supplementary answering affidavit. The purpose of this affidavit was narrow but
important: the respondent was directed to place evidence before the court explaining why
the sequestration of his estate would not be to the advantage of c reditors. He was
afforded until 24 September 2025 to comply. The provisional order was thus extended to
27 October 2025.
[5] Despite the clear directive and the considerable indulgence granted to him, the
respondent did not file any supplementary affidavit and has placed no further evidence
before the court. The matter therefore proceeds on the founding papers, the answering
affidavit of 2 September 2025, and the applicant’s replying affidavit.
Factual background
[6] The applicant’s claim arises from goods sold and delivered to Lebogang Electrical
Wholesalers (Pty) Ltd during the period October 2017 to June 2018. The respondent
bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor for that indebtedness.
[7] Judgment against the respondent was granted on 7 May 2019 in the amount of R2
772 861.76, together with ancillary relief. Despite the lapse of more than six years since
judgment was granted, no payment has been made.

[8] On 16 July 2024, pursuant to the judgment, a writ of execution was served on the
respondent. The Sheriff returned a nulla bona, reporting that he was unable to find
attachable movable assets. This constitutes an act of insolvency under section 8(b) of the
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936.
[9] In his answering affidavit, the respondent did not dispute the indebtedness, the
judgment, or the act of insolvency. Instead, he sought to persuade the court that he was
in the process of liquidating several immovable properties that belonged to the deceased
estate of his late parents, in which he serves as executor, and that the proceeds of those
sales would ultimately be available to settle his debt to the applicant.
[10] According to the respondent, six properties belonging to the deceased estates had
either been sold or remained on the market. He asserted that two of the properties had
already been sold and that four additional properties were being marketed, with a
combined estimated value of R5 million. He claimed that the proceeds of the sales would
be used to settle the liabilities of the estates, including the applicant’s claim.
[11] He also expressed his commitment to settling the debt in full and requested the
court’s patience while the transfer processes were finalised.
Evaluation
[12] The applicant’s reply demonstrates that the respondent’s allegations are materially
deficient. Deeds Office searches conducted after receipt of the answering affidavit reveal
that only three properties are registered in the names of the deceased parents. Two of
these properties are subject to mortga ge bonds totalling R1.8 million. There is no

evidence regarding the outstanding amounts on these bonds or the current equity
position.
[13] The respondent provided no substantiation for his assertion that the properties
have a combined value of R5 million. He offered no valuations, no municipal estimates,
no estate agent letters, and no documentary proof of offers or concluded sales, save for
a letter dated 2 September 2025 referring to an offer to purchase that had not yet resulted
in transfer more than a year after signature.
[14] Critically, the respondent failed to indicate who the other creditors of the deceased
estates are, in what amounts they are owed, or whether any proceeds realised would be
available for distribution after the settlement of estate claims and the satisfactio n of
secured creditors.
[15] More importantly, the application before this court concerns the sequestration of
the respondent in his personal capacity, not the estates of his late parents. The
respondent has provided no information whatsoever regarding his own assets, liabilities,
monthly income, expenses, or financial solvency. This omission is material.
[16] The respondent’s failure to file a supplementary affidavit —despite being afforded
a generous opportunity to address these very issues—reinforces the inference that he is
unable to meaningfully rebut the factual material placed before the court in reply.
[17] To succeed in obtaining a final sequestration order, an applicant must establish a
liquidated claim; an act of insolvency or factual insolvency; and a reasonable prospect
that sequestration will be to the advantage of creditors.

[18] The first two requirements are conceded or indisputable on the papers. The
remaining issue is whether sequestration will be to the advantage of creditors.
[19] The threshold for establishing advantage is not high. A reasonable prospect of
some pecuniary benefit is sufficient. This may include the prospect of investigations by a
trustee, the recovery of concealed or unknown assets, or the equitable distribution of
assets through the statutory winding-up process.1
[20] On the evidence, the respondent owns immovable property jointly with his former
spouse and holds interests in several juristic entities. These assets require proper
investigation, which only a trustee can conduct. The respondent has provided no cogent
or reliable evidence of s olvency or of an alternative mechanism that would result in the
applicant being paid.
Conclusion
[21] The respondent has had more than six years to liquidate or reduce the judgment
debt. He has not done so. His reliance on the liquidation of the deceased estates is vague,
unreliable, unsupported, and irrelevant to his own financial position.
[22] His failure to file the supplementary affidavit, which was directed specifically at the
question of advantage to creditors, leads to the only reasonable conclusion. He is unable
to dispute the applicant’s case on this requirement.

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); Meskin & Co v Friedman 1948 (2) SA 555 (W).

[23] The applicant has shown that a trustee may recover assets or equity, investigate
the respondent’s financial affairs, and potentially realise value for creditors. This satisfies
the statutory requirement.
[24] In these circumstances, the applicant has established all the jurisdictional
requirements for the granting of a final sequestration order. The respondent has not
placed any reliable evidence before the court to rebut the applicant’s case or to show that
sequestration would not be to the advantage of creditors.
[25] In the result the following order is made:
1. The provisional sequestration order granted on 22 May 2025 is confirmed.
2. The estate of the respondent is placed under final sequestration.

________ ___
L WINDELL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 19 November 2025.

Appearances
For the applicant: Mr K. Lavine
Instructed by: Orlewitz Inc
For the first respondent: In person
Date of Hearing: 27 October 2025
Date of Judgment: 19 November 2025