[1] This is an opposed provisional sequestration application of the respondent. At the
hearing, the respondent appeared in person and sought a postponement to enable him
to obtain legal representation. This is not the first time that he has done this. At a pri or
hearing during April 2026 when a postponement was sought, the court warned the
respondent that this would be last postponement afforded to him.
[2] Despite this, the matter was postponed out of necessity at the previous hearing as the
respondent’s answering affidavit had not been pulled through from Caselines to Court
on line.
[3] The matter was accordingly set down again for 3 August 2023 and was heard by me.
[4] This notwithstanding, applicant, again, sought a postponement.
[5] The applicant opposes the postponement.
[6] The chronology of events is relevant to the respondent’s opposition to the
postponement.
The relevant chronology
[7] On 5 September 2022 , the applicant and Baynes Transformers Technology (Pty) Ltd
(“BTT”) entered into an instalment sale agreement with BTT in the amount of R11 million.
The respondent provided a guarantee as sole director and shareholder of BTT in favour
of the applicant. In providing this guarantee, the respondent verified that he had assets
in his personal capacity totalling R19 million, thus providing sufficient security to the
applicant for the facility afforded to the respondent.
[8] From the Bar, the respondent, who is hard of hearing, explained to me that although
BTT’s business was a thriving one and the best in all of Africa, it fell on hard times due
to alleged unfair competition and improper acts by his competitors that forced him out of
the market and caused the business to fail and rendered BTT unable to service its
indebtedness to the applicant. He indicated that this was the subject of an investigation
by the Competitions Commission and the Public Protector’s Office.
[9] None of this was on the papers under oath before me.
[9] None of this was on the papers under oath before me.
[10] On 15 March 2024, the applicant instituted proceedings against BTT and the respondent
under case number 2024 -128635 pursuant to BTT’s default under the instalment sale
agreement and a judgment under the instalment sale agreement and the guarantee was
granted against BTT and the respondent.
[11] 10 February 2025: BTT was placed under provisional liquidation by order granted by
Flatela J under case number 2024-031538 with a return date set for 28 July 2025.
[12] On 21 July 2025, the matter under case number 2024-128635 proceeded against the
respondent as guarantor and an order was granted by McAslin AJ against the
respondent in the amount of R 11 281 913.17, together with interest and costs.
[13] On 1 August 2025, BTT was placed under final liquidation by order granted by Davis J
under case number 2024-031538.
[14] On 15 September 2025, a warrant of execution was served personally on the respondent
at his residential address and a nulla bona return was issued.
[15] In the result, an application for the provisional sequestration of the respondent was
brought that was served personally on the respondent on 20 October 2025.
[16] At the outset it must be mentioned that during the course of the sequestration
proceedings thus far, the respondent has represented himself and must thus be
regarded as a lay litigant.
[17] The respondent’s conduct of the litigation since his entering an appearance to defend
on 3 November 2025 becomes crucially relevant to the current postponement sought
and is detailed below.
[18] Although the respondent filed a notice of intention to oppose on 3 November 2025, he
failed to timeously file his answering affidavit that ought to have been filed by no later
than 24 November 2025.
[19] Accordingly, the matter was set down for hearing on the unopposed insolvency roll on 1
December 2025. On this occasion, the respondent appeared in person and informed the
Court that he was in the process of securing legal representation. At his request, the
matter was removed from the unopposed insolvency roll to afford him an opportunity to
obtain legal representation and to deliver his answering affidavit. Symon AJ removed
obtain legal representation and to deliver his answering affidavit. Symon AJ removed
the matter from the role and afforded the respondent an indulgence to file his answering
affidavit within 15 days of the Court Order.
[20] The respondent failed to do so , and thus the matter was again set down on the
unopposed insolvency roll on 16 March 2026, which came before Notshe AJ. The
respondent again appeared in person and requested a further postponement to afford
him additional time to secure legal representation and file an answering affidavit. The
respondent secured yet a further indulgence from Notshe AJ to file his answering
affidavit by no later than 17 April 2026. Again the matter was removed from the
unopposed insolvency roll.
[21] Finally on 17 April 2026, the respondent filed his answering affidavit as directed by
Notshe AJ The respondent filed his answering affidavit after court hours on 17 April
2026, with the result that the matter was removed from the unopposed insolvency roll
again. This affidavit was only filed on Court Online, was not uploaded onto Case lines;
nor was it served on the applicant’s attorneys.
[22] On 1 May 2026, the respondent filed a supplementary answering affidavit, again without
uploading it onto Caselines or serving on the respondent’s attorneys.
[23] On 4 May 2026, the matter was again placed on the unopposed insolvency roll . Again,
the respondent appeared in person and indicated that he had filed answering papers,
requiring that the matter be removed from the unopposed roll and directing that it now
be set down on the opposed roll. The learned judge advised the respondent to approach
the Registrar to enable him to upload his answering papers onto Caselines as required
and familiarise himself with how to navigate Caselines, which he did.
[24] On each of these occasions, the Court afforded the respondent an indulgence to obtain
legal representation. Despite those indulgences, the respondent ha d not yet secured
legal representation by the time the matter came before me on 4 August 2026 where it
had been set down on my opposed insolvency roll.
The steps taken by the respondent to obtain legal representation
The steps taken by the respondent to obtain legal representation
[25] The respondent applied to Legal Aid South Africa for legal representation, but that
application was unsuccessful. On 15 July 2026, the respondent approached the Legal
Practice Council (“ LPC”)’s Pro Bono Office in a further attempt to secure legal
representation. He indicated to me that he had provided the LPC with the required
financial documentation and was informed he would be informed of the outcome of his
application in the next few weeks.
[26] There appears to be a related matter pending in the Pretoria High Court in which the
respondent is seeking to set aside the final liquidation of BTT, amongst other matters,
that are not before me. The respondent is not represented in those proceedings either,
but it appears that one of the judges hearing that matter sought to assist the respondent
by requesting the Pretoria Society of Advocates to assign a member to represent the
respondent pro bono, which they did. However, the respondent states that he has been
struggling to find an attorney to brief him and also act pro bono. He informed me that he
had approached Bowman Gilfillan and Webber Wentzel Attorneyss, amongst others,
without success.
[27] These steps, however, involve his representation in the proceedings in Pretoria and not
in the proceedings before me, although as I understand it he has approached the LPC
to assign a pro bono attorney to him to brief the advocate who has already agreed to act
pro bono in the Pretoria proceedings and he believes, would represent him in both
proceedings, that is the proceedings for his provisional sequestration in Johannesburg
and the proceedings involving BTT in Pretoria.
The hearing before me
[28] The applicant’s counsel was understandably frustrated by the proceedings before me
and the respondent’s attempt to again seek a postponement in order to afford him an
opportunity to obtain legal representation, which it was submitted was merely a delaying
tactic designed to avoid the inevitable sequestration of his estate. I agree that the
persistent indulgences afforded to the respondent must stop.
[29] I am advised that when the respondent appeared before Notche AJ, the learned acting
judge warned the respondent that the respondent would not be afforded any further
indulgences; yet he secured further time to obtain legal representation on 4 May 2026
because his affidavits had not been pulled though from Court Online to Caselines and
because his affidavits had not been pulled though from Court Online to Caselines and
could not he heard. That necessitated that the matter again be removed from the roll
and set down again for the week commencing 3 August 2026.
[30] Because the respondent appears to have further advanced in his quest to secure legal
representation on a pro bono basis I am prepared to grant him one last indulgence to do
so. I believe that the registrar is presently allocating dates for October 2026. That would
afford the respondent further time to obtain legal representation. However, should he
not have secured legal representation by the time that the matter is set down again on
the opposed insolvency roll, he must know that he will not be afforded any further
Date of the judgment: 6 August 2026
APPEARANCES
For the applicant: Ms. Dionne Gana instructed by Du Toit, Sanchez and Moodley Inc.
For the respondent: Self-represented