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: 2026 - 032702
(1) REPORTABLE: No
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes
(3) REVISED: Yes
4 May 2026
In the ex parte application of:
MARYKE GREEFF Applicant
[ Identity number: 7[...]]
[ T1284/25 ]
[ For the rehabilitation of her insolvent estate ]
The judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected
and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives
by e-mail and uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date
and time of hand-down is deemed to be 5:00 on 4 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
2
J Vorster, AJ
[1] This is an application for rehabilitation in which the applicant relies upon the
provisions of section 124(3)(b) of the Insolvency Act, 24 of 1936. In terms of
this sub-section an insolvent may submit an application for her rehabilitation
after the expiration of a period of only six months as from the sequestration of
her estate if, at the time of making the application, no claim has been proved
against his estate.
[2] During 2025, the applicant applied for the voluntary surrender of her estate.
The application was granted, and her estate was accordingly sequestrated on
2 September 2025. The effect of a sequestration order is well established. It
results in the establishment of a concursus creditorum with the aim to “ensure
a due distribution of assets among creditors in the order of their preference”.1
[3] On 4 December 2025, the Master of the High Court appointed Maryna Estelle
Symes N O and Junaid Essop Mahomed NO as the applicant’s joint
provisional trustees.
[4] The Master convened and presided over a first meeting of creditors on 2
December 2026. The minute of this meeting reflects that the trustees
mandated a certain O. Malema to attend the meeting of their behalf (which is
curious as they were only appointed two days later), that no claims were
lodged, and that the meeting was closed.
[5] In her founding affidavit, the applicant contends that she is entitled to an order
of rehabilitation solely on the basis that no claims have been proved against
her insolvent estate.
1 Walker v Syfret NO 1911 AD 141 at 166.
3
[6] The relatively short period that elapsed between the date of sequestration and
the launch of this application on 12 February 2026 is a matter that requires
consideration. The reports submitted by the applicant’s trustees, Ms Symes
NO and Mr Mahomed NO, are notably scant in detail. They record merely that
“[n]o claims are proved to date ” and that a first meeting of creditors was held
on 2 December 2025. Both reports further indicate that there are no additional
facts which the trustees wish to draw to the attention of the Court.
[7] Before the hearing of the application, I requested the applicant’s
representatives to indicate whether a second meeting of creditors as
contemplated in section 40(3) of the Insolvency Act had been convened. In
response to my query, the applicant’s attorney, Mr Gerhardus Stephanus
Scheepers, deposed to a supplementary affidavit in which he confirms that no
second meeting of creditors has taken place, and makes the following
submission:
“It is my submission that the granting of the Applicant's application will in no
way prejudice any of the Applicant's creditors should any claims against the
estate be proven at the second meeting of creditors. The full assets valuation
amount has been collected and can be awarded despite the Applicant’s
application be granted.”
[8] For the reasons that follow, I am unable to agree with the quoted submission.
[9] In insolvent estates, claims are submitted to proof in accordance with the
procedure prescribed by section 44 of the Insolvency Act. Generally speaking,
creditors have two opportunities to proof claims, 2 namely at the first and
second meetings of creditors as contemplated in section 40.
[10] In relevant part, section 40 provides as follows:
2 In appropriate cases, creditors can also proof claims on a third occasion, being a special meeting of
creditors as contemplated in section 42.
4
“40 First and second meetings of creditors
(1) On the receipt of an order of the court sequestrating an estate finally,
the Master shall immediately convene by notice in the Gazette, a first
meeting of the creditors of the estate for the proof of their claims
against the estate and for the election of a trustee.
(2) The Master shall publish such notice on a date not less than ten days
before the date upon which the meeting is to be held and shall in such
notice state the time and place at which the meeting is to be held.
(3)
(a) After the first meeting of creditors and the appointment of a
trustee, the Master shall appoint a second meeting of creditors
for the proof of claims against the estate, and for the purpose
of receiving the report of the trustee on the affairs and
condition of the estate and giving the trustee directions in
connection with the administration of the estate.
(b) The trustee shall convene the second meeting of creditors by
notice in the Gazette and in one or more newspapers
circulating in the district in which the insolvent resides or his
principal place of business is situate.
(c) … ”
[11] It is well established that only the Master may convene a first meeting of
creditors. The position in respect of a second meeting is, however, different.
In terms of section 40(3), a trustee is empowered to convene a second
meeting of creditors for the purposes of the proof of claims against the estate,
the furnishing of a report on the affairs and condition of the estate, and the
giving of directions to the trustee in connection with its administration .3 Whilst
a first meeting is convened by the publication of a notice in the Government
Gazette, a second meeting requires additional steps. In the latter instance, the
trustees are obliged to publish notice of the meeting not only in the
Government Gazette, but also in one or more newspapers circulating in the
area in which the insolvent resides. In practice, trustees will often further give
area in which the insolvent resides. In practice, trustees will often further give
notice to known creditors by prepaid registered post or even email. As a
consequence, the likelihood of creditors receiving notice of a second meeting
is materially increased.
3 Bertelsmann et al, Mars, The Law of Insolvency in South Africa (Juta), 10th Edition, para. 17.2.3.
Agyrakis and Another v Gunn and Another 1963 (1) SA 602 (T) at 606D: “ The second meeting of
creditors was not 'appointed by the Master'. In practice (and this is common cause) he never fixes the
date. This is always done by the trustee.”
5
[12] There is no explanation in either the founding or the supplementary affidavit
for the joint trustees’ failure to convene a second meeting of creditors.
[13] As recorded earlier in this judgment, the application is premised on the fact
that no claims were proved against the applicant’s estate within a period of six
months after the sequestration order. The application is based on s ection
124(3), which provides:
“(3) After the expiration of a period of six months as from the sequestration
of an estate, the insolvent concerned may apply to the court for his
rehabilitation-
(a) if he has, not less than six weeks before making the
application, given to the Master and to the trustee, if any, of his
estate notice in writing, and published in the Gazette a notice
of his intention to make the application; and
(b) if, at the time of making the application, no claim has been
proved against his estate; and
(c) if he has not been convicted of an offence mentioned in
paragraph (c) of subsection (2); and
(d) if his estate was not sequestrated under any law prior to the
sequestration which he desires to end.”
[14] The effect of rehabilitation in relation to the person of the insolvent is to
eliminate his/her status as an insolvent: in the words of the statute, it has the
effect “of putting an end to the sequestration ”4 and “of relieving the insolvent
of every disability resulting from the sequestration ”.5 It also has the effect of
discharging each of his debts as existing at the date of sequestration.6
[15] However, a rehabilitation order granted pursuant to section 124(3), has the
effect that of reinvesting the insolvent with his /her estate. In this regard,
section 129(2) provides:
4 Section 129(1)(a).
5 Section 129(1)(c).
6 Muller v Kaplan NO and Others [2011] JOL 27338 (GSJ) para 88: “ It follows that the effect of a
rehabilitation under section 127A is to discharge the insolvent from pre -sequestration liabilities. At the
same time, the assets of the estate which have not yet been distributed by the Trustees remain vested
in the Trustees until they are distributed.”
6
“A rehabilitation granted on an application made in circumstances described
in subsection (3) of section one hundred and twenty -four shall have the effect
of re-investing the insolvent with his estate.”
[16] The re-vesting of assets in a rehabilitated insolvent when a rehabilitation order
is granted in terms of section 124(3), was confirmed in Ex Parte Noriskin ,7
where the following was said at 856H:
“On the petition in this matter it seems to me that the asset in respect of
which an order is sought does not remain vested in the trustee on the grant of
the rehabilitation order. That follows from the provisions of sec. 129(2) of Act
24 of 1936 where it is provided that, on the grant of an application of
rehabilitation under the provisions of sec. 124 (3) of the Act, the insolvent is
re-invested with his estate.”
[17] Consequently, the granting of a rehabilitation order in terms of section 124(3)
prior to the holding of a second meeting of creditors would have the effect of
neutralising the insolvency process. A creditor who has not yet proved a claim
would be deprived of the opportunity to participate in any distribution and
would receive no dividend. This result is particularly inappropriate in
circumstances where the applicant represented, in her application for
voluntary surrender, that creditors would receive a dividend of at least 20
cents in the Rand.
[18] In these circumstances, the mere fact that no claims have been proved within
a period of six months cannot, without more, be decisive. The statutory
scheme contemplates that creditors are afforded more than one opportunity to
prove claims, including at a second meeting of creditors. Where, as in the
present matter, no such meeting has been convened and no explanation is
provided for that omission, the Court cannot be satisfied that the absence of
proved claims reflects the true position. To grant a rehabilitation order in these
circumstances would have the effect of re -investing the insolvent with her
circumstances would have the effect of re -investing the insolvent with her
estate and thereby prematurely terminating the insolvency process, to the
7 1962 (1) SA 856 (N). See also: Ex Parte Mavromati 1948 (3) SA 886 (W) at 891.
7
potential prejudice of creditors who have not yet had a proper opportunity to
prove their claims.
[19] The following order is made:
1. The rehabilitation application is dismissed.
J VORSTER, AJ.
Acting Judge of the High Court
Date heard: 4 May 2026.
Judgment date: 4 May 2026.
Appearance:
For the applicant:
Counsel: B Lee
Instructed by: Scheepers Attorneys
083 292 0219 / (012) 543 2767