SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case number: 2025-209294
Date of hearing: 18 November 2025
Date delivered: 20 November 2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE 20/11/25
SIGNATURE
In the application between:
SORTETEX (PTY) LTD First Applicant
PIETER HENDRIK STRYDOM N.O. Second Applicant
YUSUF EBRAHIM N.O. Third Applicant
(in their capacities as provisional liquidators
OF SORTETEX (PTY) LTD
and
FRANCOIS NICOLAAS VAN DER WESTHUIZEN First Respondent
(ID. 7[...])
TANYA VAN DER WESTHUIZEN Second Respondent
(ID. 7[...])
__________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
SWANEPOEL J:
[1] This is an application brought by the applicants for the provisional
sequestration of the estate of the first respondent. The first applicant is represented
by the second and third applicants, who are the provisional liquidators of its insolvent
estate. The respondents are married out of community of property. No relief is
sought against the second respondent, and she is only cited inasmuch as she may
have an interest in the application as the first respondent’s spouse.
[2] The first respondent is an erstwhile director of the first applicant. The first
respondent has admitted that he is indebted to the first applicant in the sum of R
4 312 509. During an insolvency enquiry held in respect of the first applicant, the first
respondent admitted that he held a loan account in the first applicant for the
aforesaid amount. The first respondent also conceded in writing that the balance of
his loan account amount s to R 4 312 509. Although the first respondent put his
indebtedness in dispute in the answering affidavit, his counsel conceded in argument
that the first respondent was so indebted.
[3] The applicants have, therefore, established a claim in terms of section 10 (1),
read with section 9 (1) of the Insolvency Act, 24 of 1936 (“the Act”).
[4] The first respondent does not dispute that he is insolvent and that he cannot
pay his debts. The first respondent’s inability to pay his debts is apparent from the
fact that shortly after he testified in the insolvency enquiry, he applied to be placed
under debt review in terms of the National Credit Act, 2005 . By so -doing, the first
respondent unequivocally conceded that he is unable to pay his debts.
[5] The first respondent raised two defences to the application. Firstly, he argued
that the application was not urgent. Secondly, he contended that his sequestration
would not be to the advantage of creditor s. The first respondent raised other issues
would not be to the advantage of creditor s. The first respondent raised other issues
in the answering affidavit, some whimsical, others with a little more substance, but
none were persisted with in argument. The first respondent’s initial in limine
argument, that the citation of his wife as second respondent constituted misjoinder ,
was expressly abandoned in argument.
[6] As far as urgency is concerned, there is always a measure of urgency to a
sequestration application (or winding up) .1 Furthermore, the facts of th is case also
justify the bringing of the application on an urgent basis. The first respondent admits
that he has a number of creditors. He owes money to three commercial banks.
[7] The first respondent is also liable to LNDR Business Credit (Pty) Ltd in the
sum of R 27 251 170.52 as surety on behalf of the first applicant. Moreover, he has
been sued on a suretyship by Hollard Insurance Company Ltd for payment of the
sum of R 5 000 000. In respect of the latter claim, the first respondent has alleged
that he has a cast -iron defence in that he did not sign a suretyship in his personal
capacity. This contention is blatantly false. The suretyship speaks for itself, and the
first respondent clearly bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor.
[8] In my view, it is highly improbable that the first respondent will not be hit with a
spate of law suits, which makes it more important to establish a concursus
creditorum as soon as possible. I find that the applicants have established urgency.
[9] The second defence raised was that there would be no advantage to the first
respondent’s creditors were the first respondent to be sequestrated. The first
respondent says that he only owns one asset, an immovable property which he owns
jointly with his wife . He says that his equity in the property amounts to only R
1 250 000. He says that, given the costs associated with declaring the property
specially executable, there would be little equity for distribution between his
creditors. There are, he says, insufficient assets in his estate to establish an
advantage to creditors.
[10] However, the first respondent has failed to provide the second and third
[10] However, the first respondent has failed to provide the second and third
applicants with a CM 100 form, despite having been requested to do so du ring
September 2025, which suggests to me that he does not wish to play open cards
1 Ex Parte Nell and Others NNO 2014 (6) SA 545 (GP); Absa Bank v De Klerk and Related Cases
1999 (4) SA 835 (E)
regarding his assets and liabilities. Given the fact that the first respondent was
clearly untruthful regarding the Hollard suretyship, I am not inclined to take his word
regarding the extent of his assets.
[11] Whilst section 10 (c) of the Act requires a court to find that there is reason to
believe that sequestration would be to the advantage of creditors, t hat does not
mean that an applicant has to show that there would likely be an immediate financial
advantage to creditors. If there is a reasonable prospect that an investigation might
uncover hidden assets in due course, that would be to the advantage of creditors.2
[12] In this case, there is a substantial amount of money owed to the first applicant
that is currently unaccounted for. In my view the only manner in which these monies
can be effectively traced is by an enquiry held by the trustee of the first respondent’s
estate. I find, consequently, that the first respondent’s sequestration would to the
advantage of his creditors.
[13] I make the following order:
[13.1] The forms and service provided for in the Uniform Rules of
Court are dispensed with and the matter is heard as one of urgency.
[13.2] The estate of the first respondent is placed under provisional
sequestration in the hands of the Master of the above Honourable Court.
[13.3] A rule nisi is issued calling on all interested parties to appear
and to show cause on 10 February 2026 why the first respondent’s
estate should not be placed under final sequestration.
[13.4] The costs of this application are costs in the sequestration of
the first respondent’s estate.
SWANEPOEL J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
2 Meskin & Co v Friedman 1948 (2) SA 555 (W)
Counsel for the applicant: Adv. L Hollander
Instructed by: Assheton-Smith Ginsberg Inc.
Counsel for the respondent: Adv R van Schalkwyk
Instructed by: Van Breda & Herbst Inc
Hearing on: 18 November 2025
Judgment on: 20 November 2025