On 15 May 2018, Imobrite (Pty) Ltd (the appellant) lent R2,750,000 to DTL Boerdery CC (the respondent) and its sole member, Mr Tielman Kotze, under an acknowledgement of debt (AOD) to be repaid in ten yearly instalments of R791,495.95, with the first instalment due on 7 May 2019. The appellant held security in the form of a special and general notarial bond over the respondent's movable assets for R2,750,000 plus R540,000 in costs, as well as a first ranking covering mortgage bond over the respondent's farm. The respondent failed to pay the first instalment by the due date. After a letter of demand, the appellant issued a statutory demand on 21 June 2019 under s 69 of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984. The respondent disputed the debt calculation (interest and facility fee) but did not tender payment of any amount. On 13 September 2019, the appellant applied to wind up the respondent on the basis that it was unable to pay its debts. The North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, dismissed the winding-up application with costs on the grounds that it constituted an abuse of court processes given the appellant's secured creditor status. The appellant successfully appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The order of the high court was set aside and replaced with a provisional winding-up order placing DTL Boerdery CC under provisional winding-up in the hands of the Master of the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng. A rule nisi was issued calling upon the respondent and all interested parties to show cause within six weeks why the respondent should not be placed under a final order of winding-up and why the costs of the application should not be costs in the winding-up. Detailed service provisions were ordered, including service on the registered office, SARS, by publication in newspapers and the Government Gazette, on all known creditors with claims exceeding R25,000, on employees and relevant trade unions. Costs were ordered to be costs in the winding-up.
The binding legal principle is that under s 69(1)(a) of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, a creditor who holds pre-existing security is not precluded from relying on the deeming provision that a close corporation is unable to pay its debts if the corporation fails to pay, secure or compound the debt within 21 days after service of a statutory demand. The term 'secure' in that section refers to the provision of security or additional security to the creditor's reasonable satisfaction within the 21-day period following the demand, not to security already held by the creditor at the time of the demand. An unpaid creditor has a right ex debito justitiae to a winding-up order against a close corporation that is unable to pay its debts, and the discretion to refuse such an order is a narrow one that must be exercised on proper legal principles and a solid factual foundation. A winding-up application does not constitute an abuse of process where there is no bona fide dispute on reasonable grounds concerning the debt, even if peripheral aspects such as interest calculations are questioned, particularly where no tender of payment of even the undisputed portion is made.
The Court made several obiter observations. It noted that the concept of concursus creditorum (a body of creditors) is not a prerequisite for granting a winding-up order but rather a consequence of the winding-up order by operation of law. The Court also observed that asset valuation is often elastic and subjective, asset liquidity is often more difficult than debtors claim, and creditors often lack knowledge of a company's assets, making courts more comfortable with objective tests such as ability to meet current liabilities rather than abstruse asset valuation exercises. The Court further observed that a winding-up order will not be granted where the sole or predominant motive is something other than bona fide bringing about liquidation, or where the purpose is to enforce a bona fide disputed debt or to oppress, defraud the company or frustrate its rights. The Court noted that while it is within a court's power to grant a final winding-up order instead of a provisional order, it is generally good practice to grant a provisional order first to afford interested parties, especially creditors and employees, an opportunity to support or oppose final liquidation.
This judgment provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of s 69(1)(a) of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, particularly concerning the position of secured creditors in winding-up applications. It clarifies that the fact that a creditor already holds adequate security does not prevent that creditor from relying on the deeming provision in s 69(1)(a) to establish that a close corporation is unable to pay its debts. The 'secure' requirement in the section refers to providing new or additional security within the 21-day period after the statutory demand, not pre-existing security. The judgment reaffirms the ex debito justitiae principle that an unpaid creditor is generally entitled to a winding-up order against a debtor unable to pay its debts, and that the discretion to refuse such an order is a narrow one that must be exercised on sound factual and legal principles. The case also clarifies that winding-up proceedings are not designed to resolve bona fide disputed debts, but that merely disputing peripheral calculations (such as interest and fees) without tendering payment does not constitute a bona fide defence. The decision is significant for creditors' remedies in insolvency proceedings and clarifies when secured creditors may pursue winding-up as a remedy.
Explore 3 related cases • Click to navigate