, MRL3701 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2026
Question 1
Section 8(a) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 provides that a debtor commits an act of
insolvency if she leaves the Republic, remains outside the Republic, departs from her
dwelling or otherwise absents herself with the intention of evading or delaying
payment of her debts.1 The provision therefore contains two essential requirements:
first, there must be an actual departure or absence from the Republic or the debtor’s
dwelling; and second, the absence must be accompanied by an intention to evade or
delay the payment of debts.2Importantly, the debtor does not have to be factually
insolvent for an act of insolvency under section 8(a) to arise.3
The intention requirement is subjective, meaning that the court considers the debtor’s
actual intention. However, intention is ordinarily proved through inference from the
surrounding circumstances rather than merely accepting the debtor’s own
explanation.4Although leaving or remaining outside South Africa may create an
inference that the debtor intended to evade or delay her creditors, absence alone is
insufficient because there may be an innocent explanation for the debtor’s conduct.5
In Naledi’s circumstances, the first requirement is clearly satisfied because she left South
Africa and, six months later, remains in Portugal. However, the creditors would face
difficulty proving the second requirement. Naledi travelled to Portugal because her
1
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 s 8(a).
2
Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 203.
3
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 s 9(1).
4
Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 203.
5
Maree and Another v Bobroff and Another (2016/32219) [2018] ZAGPJHC 79; Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015)
[2015] ZAWCHC 203.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2026
Question 1
Section 8(a) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 provides that a debtor commits an act of
insolvency if she leaves the Republic, remains outside the Republic, departs from her
dwelling or otherwise absents herself with the intention of evading or delaying
payment of her debts.1 The provision therefore contains two essential requirements:
first, there must be an actual departure or absence from the Republic or the debtor’s
dwelling; and second, the absence must be accompanied by an intention to evade or
delay the payment of debts.2Importantly, the debtor does not have to be factually
insolvent for an act of insolvency under section 8(a) to arise.3
The intention requirement is subjective, meaning that the court considers the debtor’s
actual intention. However, intention is ordinarily proved through inference from the
surrounding circumstances rather than merely accepting the debtor’s own
explanation.4Although leaving or remaining outside South Africa may create an
inference that the debtor intended to evade or delay her creditors, absence alone is
insufficient because there may be an innocent explanation for the debtor’s conduct.5
In Naledi’s circumstances, the first requirement is clearly satisfied because she left South
Africa and, six months later, remains in Portugal. However, the creditors would face
difficulty proving the second requirement. Naledi travelled to Portugal because her
1
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 s 8(a).
2
Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 203.
3
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 s 9(1).
4
Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 203.
5
Maree and Another v Bobroff and Another (2016/32219) [2018] ZAGPJHC 79; Oro Africa (Pty) Ltd v Currin (13051/2015)
[2015] ZAWCHC 203.
