JUDGMENT
005394/2024_ 24022026 / lad
2
Mogashoa says that he “experience[s] some degree of
travelling in current times, for various reasons ” and that
“there exist[s] a possibility that the day a court hearing date
announced; it may clash with these travels, meaning l may
not be in the city to attend [the] hearing and make
representations ”. It was on this basis that Mr. Mogashoa
requested what he called a “virtual sitting”. Mr. Mogashoa’s
affidavit was filed a full six months ago. There is no further
explanation of why Mr Mogash oa cannot attend the hearing
in person today. 10
In those circumstances, the default approach being
that all matters are heard in open court , and having issued
a directive that all of the matters on my roll for this week
would be heard in open court, I was not inclined to grant Mr
Mogash oa a virtual hearing. Mr Mogash oa was informed of
this yesterday, on 23 February 2026 . H is response , received
by email shortly before the matter was called , was that he
would like the court to find some other day on which the
matter can be heard virtually. Again, no reason was given
why Mr. Mogash oa is unable to attend court in person today.
20
Since Mr. Mogashoa is a lay litigant, I will interpret
the request in his email as an application to postpone the
matter . B ut such an application has no prospects of
success. The applicant's case on the merits is
overwhelming. V an der Merwe AJ granted a provisional
JUDGMENT
005394/2024_ 24022026 / lad
3
order on 4 December 2025 , in which he found that all the
requirements for a provisional sequestration order had been
fulfilled : prima facie the applicant ha s a claim in excess of
the prescribed amount ; an act of insolvency ha s been
committed ( in that Mr. M ogashoa failed to satisfy a
judgment debt , the Sheriff, on 4 April 2023, having issued a
nulla bona return in confirmation of this); and there is an
advantage to creditors to be had in sequestrating Mr .
Mogash oa.
Nothing has been placed before me today that would 10
displace those prima facie findings . I ndeed the defence on
the merits in Mr. Mogash oa ’s answering affidavit is far from
coherent. It is undisputed that Mr Mogash oa is hopelessly
behind with his payments to the applicant , of which he is a
member. He is also hopelessly behind with his payments to
the City of Johannesburg which supplies him with services.
I understand from the papers that Mr. Mogasho a’ s o nly
know n immo vabl e property has been attached in execution
of a mortgage debt outstanding on it.
In these circumstances , Mr Mogash oa , in addition to
20
having committed the acts of insolvency set out on the
papers, is quite plainly hopelessly factually insolvent.
There are also at least three creditors, one of whom
is the applicant, who would derive some benefit from
Mr Mogash oa being sequestrated. His affairs, on the
JUDGMENT
005394/2024_ 24022026 / lad
4
papers, seem to me to be murky at best. Mr Mogash oa says
he operates a company . I do not know on the papers
whether that company is profitable, has any assets distinct
from Mr. Mogashoa’s own or gives Mr. Mogashoa any sort
income.
A trustee appointed as part of the insolvency process
would no doubt be able to explore those issues and would
be able to consider whether a reasonable dividend for at
least the three creditors named in this application and any
other creditors Mr Mogash oa might have, could be
10
calculated and paid out. There is accordingly, on the
undisputed facts, a clear advantage to creditors .
It is for these reasons that in my view the applicant's
prospects of success in the main application are
overwhelming.
It follo ws that Mr Mogash oa suffers little to no
prejudice if I refuse to postpone the matter and grant an
order against him in his absence. If he were here, he could
do no better than the papers would allow . O n the papers
there is no prospect of Mr. Mogashoa resisting a final
20
sequestration order .
The prejudice to the applicant and to Mr Mogash oa 's
creditors, in granting a postponement, is, on the facts as I
have set them out, palpable . In particular the applicant
suffers real prejudice from having to put up with an owner of