MRL3701 Prescribed Cases:
_________________________________________________________
Dear Students,
I trust you are well.
Please see below the list of prescribed cases that must be studied this semester,
together with all the other relevant study materials.
Please note that we will NOT be sending the cases to students. Please refer to E-
Reserves of the Unisa Library, where you will find all the prescribed cases.
Below is a breakdown of which cases are relevant to each learning unit:
Learning Unit 1:
Magnum Financial Holdings (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Summerly and another NNO
1984 (1) SA 160 (W)
Learning Unit 2:
Ex Parte Arntzen (Nedbank Ltd as intervening creditor) 2013 (1) SA 49 (KZP)
Strutfast (Pty) Ltd v Uys 2017 (6) SA 491 (GJ)
Learning Unit 3:
Ex Parte Henning 1981 (3) SA 843 (O)
Learning Unit 4:
Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C)
Stratford v Investec Bank Ltd 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC) (prescribed judgment to be studied
as in the law report)
Learning Unit 5:
Amod v Khan 1947 (2) SA 432 (N)
Learning Unit 6:
N/A
,Learning Unit 7:
Vorster v Steyn NO en andere 1981 (3) SA 831 (O)
Mabe Z "Life and other insurance policy benefits and the property of an insolvent
person" (2015) 78(2) THRHR 237
Learning Unit 8:
Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300(CC)
Learning Unit 9:
Sarrahwitz v Maritz NO and Another 2015 (4) SA 491 (CC)
Learning Unit 10:
N/A
Learning Unit 11:
N/A
Learning Unit 12:
N/A
Learning Unit 13:
N/A
Learning Unit 14:
Estate Wege v Strauss 1932 AD 76
Learning Unit 15:
Estate Wege v Strauss 1932 AD 76
Pretorius' Trustee v Van Blommenstein 1949 (1) SA 267 (O)
Hendriks NO v Swanepoel 1962 (4) SA 338 (A)
Pretorius NO v Stock Owners' Co-operative Co Ltd 1959 (4) SA 462 (A)
,Learning Unit 16:
Ensor NO v Rensco Motors (Pty) Ltd 1981 (1) SA 815 (A)
Learning Unit 17:
Joint Liquidators of Glen Anil Development Corporation Ltd (in Liquidation) v Hill
Samuel (SA) Ltd 1982 (1) SA 103 (A)
Learning Unit 18:
N/A
Learning Unit 19:
N/A
Learning Unit 20:
Ex parte Snooke 2014 (5) SA 426 (FFB)
Learning Unit 21:
N/A
Learning Unit 22:
Rand Air (Pty) Ltd v Ray Bester Investments (Pty) Ltd 1985 (2) SA 345 (W)
Learning Unit 23:
N/A
Learning Unit 24:
Southern Palace Investments 265 (Pty) Ltd v Midnight Storm Investments 386 (Pty)
Ltd 2012 (2) SA 423
I trust this will assist. Best wishes for your studies!
Warm regards,
Mrs Taljaard
, Ex parte Henning 1981:
• Voluntary surrender of estate for sequestration.
• Requirement of advantage to creditors at an application for the voluntary surrender of the estate.
• In this case, the debtor’s wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, made a
monthly contribution from her salary to pay his (the debtor’s) creditors. The question was
whether this fact should have been taken into account to determine whether sequestration would
be to the advantage of the creditors.
Facts In an application for the surrender of the applicant’s estate, it appeared that his
wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, made a monthly
contribution from her salary to pay his creditors. A creditor opposed based on the
following grounds:
(i) That the application didn’t comply with the requirements of Section 6(1)
because the applicant's assets didn’t cover costs of sequestration payable
from the free residue;
(ii) That the respondent would be much better off if the application for
voluntary surrender were refused and the applicant were compelled to
continue paying the respondent for 9 years;
(iii) That the applicant was approaching the court to avoid paying
respondent's claim;
(iv)That the statement of affairs that lay for inspection did not contain the
personal information (Annexure VIII).
Legal Question • Can failure to comply with any prescribed formalities be condoned.
• Should the wife’s contributions be taken into account to determine whether
sequestration would be to the advantage of the creditors?
Judgement • The voluntary surrender of the applicant’s estate was accepted.
Ratio Decidendi • That even if sequestration costs had to be available at the time of the
application, the applicant's assets would probably fetch R 1,030 and would
therefore cover the sequestration costs which the parties had agreed would
run to about R 1,000. Where there are sufficient assets to cover costs of
sequestration and administration at time of an application for voluntary
sequestration, there’s proper compliance with Section 6(1).
• That the test was not to compare the respondent's position at the time of
immediate voluntary surrender of the applicant's estate with the respondent's
position if the monthly debt payments were continued for 9 years. The
question was merely whether the court papers showed whether voluntary
surrender would be to the advantage of all the creditors. Nobody could force
the applicant’s wife to work if she did not want to work and, if she stopped
working there would scarcely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the
family. Accordingly, this factor is too vague or uncertain to take into
_________________________________________________________
Dear Students,
I trust you are well.
Please see below the list of prescribed cases that must be studied this semester,
together with all the other relevant study materials.
Please note that we will NOT be sending the cases to students. Please refer to E-
Reserves of the Unisa Library, where you will find all the prescribed cases.
Below is a breakdown of which cases are relevant to each learning unit:
Learning Unit 1:
Magnum Financial Holdings (Pty) Ltd (in Liquidation) v Summerly and another NNO
1984 (1) SA 160 (W)
Learning Unit 2:
Ex Parte Arntzen (Nedbank Ltd as intervening creditor) 2013 (1) SA 49 (KZP)
Strutfast (Pty) Ltd v Uys 2017 (6) SA 491 (GJ)
Learning Unit 3:
Ex Parte Henning 1981 (3) SA 843 (O)
Learning Unit 4:
Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C)
Stratford v Investec Bank Ltd 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC) (prescribed judgment to be studied
as in the law report)
Learning Unit 5:
Amod v Khan 1947 (2) SA 432 (N)
Learning Unit 6:
N/A
,Learning Unit 7:
Vorster v Steyn NO en andere 1981 (3) SA 831 (O)
Mabe Z "Life and other insurance policy benefits and the property of an insolvent
person" (2015) 78(2) THRHR 237
Learning Unit 8:
Harksen v Lane 1998 (1) SA 300(CC)
Learning Unit 9:
Sarrahwitz v Maritz NO and Another 2015 (4) SA 491 (CC)
Learning Unit 10:
N/A
Learning Unit 11:
N/A
Learning Unit 12:
N/A
Learning Unit 13:
N/A
Learning Unit 14:
Estate Wege v Strauss 1932 AD 76
Learning Unit 15:
Estate Wege v Strauss 1932 AD 76
Pretorius' Trustee v Van Blommenstein 1949 (1) SA 267 (O)
Hendriks NO v Swanepoel 1962 (4) SA 338 (A)
Pretorius NO v Stock Owners' Co-operative Co Ltd 1959 (4) SA 462 (A)
,Learning Unit 16:
Ensor NO v Rensco Motors (Pty) Ltd 1981 (1) SA 815 (A)
Learning Unit 17:
Joint Liquidators of Glen Anil Development Corporation Ltd (in Liquidation) v Hill
Samuel (SA) Ltd 1982 (1) SA 103 (A)
Learning Unit 18:
N/A
Learning Unit 19:
N/A
Learning Unit 20:
Ex parte Snooke 2014 (5) SA 426 (FFB)
Learning Unit 21:
N/A
Learning Unit 22:
Rand Air (Pty) Ltd v Ray Bester Investments (Pty) Ltd 1985 (2) SA 345 (W)
Learning Unit 23:
N/A
Learning Unit 24:
Southern Palace Investments 265 (Pty) Ltd v Midnight Storm Investments 386 (Pty)
Ltd 2012 (2) SA 423
I trust this will assist. Best wishes for your studies!
Warm regards,
Mrs Taljaard
, Ex parte Henning 1981:
• Voluntary surrender of estate for sequestration.
• Requirement of advantage to creditors at an application for the voluntary surrender of the estate.
• In this case, the debtor’s wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, made a
monthly contribution from her salary to pay his (the debtor’s) creditors. The question was
whether this fact should have been taken into account to determine whether sequestration would
be to the advantage of the creditors.
Facts In an application for the surrender of the applicant’s estate, it appeared that his
wife, to whom he was married out of community of property, made a monthly
contribution from her salary to pay his creditors. A creditor opposed based on the
following grounds:
(i) That the application didn’t comply with the requirements of Section 6(1)
because the applicant's assets didn’t cover costs of sequestration payable
from the free residue;
(ii) That the respondent would be much better off if the application for
voluntary surrender were refused and the applicant were compelled to
continue paying the respondent for 9 years;
(iii) That the applicant was approaching the court to avoid paying
respondent's claim;
(iv)That the statement of affairs that lay for inspection did not contain the
personal information (Annexure VIII).
Legal Question • Can failure to comply with any prescribed formalities be condoned.
• Should the wife’s contributions be taken into account to determine whether
sequestration would be to the advantage of the creditors?
Judgement • The voluntary surrender of the applicant’s estate was accepted.
Ratio Decidendi • That even if sequestration costs had to be available at the time of the
application, the applicant's assets would probably fetch R 1,030 and would
therefore cover the sequestration costs which the parties had agreed would
run to about R 1,000. Where there are sufficient assets to cover costs of
sequestration and administration at time of an application for voluntary
sequestration, there’s proper compliance with Section 6(1).
• That the test was not to compare the respondent's position at the time of
immediate voluntary surrender of the applicant's estate with the respondent's
position if the monthly debt payments were continued for 9 years. The
question was merely whether the court papers showed whether voluntary
surrender would be to the advantage of all the creditors. Nobody could force
the applicant’s wife to work if she did not want to work and, if she stopped
working there would scarcely be sufficient to meet the requirements of the
family. Accordingly, this factor is too vague or uncertain to take into
