INSOLVENCY LAW
(MRL3701)
Assignment 01
Unique no: 623155
Due date: 16 April 2021
Student: Mr. Ndwakhulu Gilbert Chauke
Student no: 32321279
, Assignment 01
QUESTION: Study the prescribed judgment of Stratford v Investec Bank Ltd 2015 (3)
SA 1 (CC) and answer the following questions:
1. What was the order that was sought by the domestic employees, the
Stratfords, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice in the High Court
respectively?
The domestic employees – together with the Stratfords – launched a counter-
application joining the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice and seeking an
order declaring that: (a) s 9(4A) of the Insolvency Act is unconstitutional because it
indirectly discriminates against domestic employees; and (b) failure to notify domestic
employees of the sequestration proceedings amounted to a breach of their
constitutional rights to fair labour practices (s 23(1) of the Constitution), equality (s 9
of the Constitution), human dignity (s 10 of the Constitution) and access to courts (s
34 of the Constitution). Moreover, the domestic employees of the Stratfords argued
that they were not given prior notice of the provisional sequestration proceedings to
enable them to seek legal assistance and/or timeously oppose the sequestration
application. However, the appellants did not raise this constitutional challenge in their
initial answering papers because they were not aware of the verdict in Gungudoo. In
light of this, the appellants also conceded that the interpretation of the term
‘employees’ in Gungudoo was incorrect (Stratford para 10).
2. What were the issues in the Constitutional Court?
In Stratford case, the appellants challenged the constitutional validity of certain notice
provisions in the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (Insolvency Act) and their applicability to
domestic employees in sequestration applications. The core focus was primarily on
the interpretation of section 9(4A) of the aforesaid Act, which sets out certain
peremptory requirements to be satisfied by an applicant in sequestration proceedings.
The appellants also challenged the refusal of both the High Court and the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) to grant the appellants leave to appeal. The issues presented
before the Constitutional Court (CC) were as follows:
The appellants contended that: firstly, the serving of a petition as contemplated in s
9(4A) of the Insolvency Act includes domestic employees; secondly, the differentiation
(MRL3701)
Assignment 01
Unique no: 623155
Due date: 16 April 2021
Student: Mr. Ndwakhulu Gilbert Chauke
Student no: 32321279
, Assignment 01
QUESTION: Study the prescribed judgment of Stratford v Investec Bank Ltd 2015 (3)
SA 1 (CC) and answer the following questions:
1. What was the order that was sought by the domestic employees, the
Stratfords, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice in the High Court
respectively?
The domestic employees – together with the Stratfords – launched a counter-
application joining the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice and seeking an
order declaring that: (a) s 9(4A) of the Insolvency Act is unconstitutional because it
indirectly discriminates against domestic employees; and (b) failure to notify domestic
employees of the sequestration proceedings amounted to a breach of their
constitutional rights to fair labour practices (s 23(1) of the Constitution), equality (s 9
of the Constitution), human dignity (s 10 of the Constitution) and access to courts (s
34 of the Constitution). Moreover, the domestic employees of the Stratfords argued
that they were not given prior notice of the provisional sequestration proceedings to
enable them to seek legal assistance and/or timeously oppose the sequestration
application. However, the appellants did not raise this constitutional challenge in their
initial answering papers because they were not aware of the verdict in Gungudoo. In
light of this, the appellants also conceded that the interpretation of the term
‘employees’ in Gungudoo was incorrect (Stratford para 10).
2. What were the issues in the Constitutional Court?
In Stratford case, the appellants challenged the constitutional validity of certain notice
provisions in the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (Insolvency Act) and their applicability to
domestic employees in sequestration applications. The core focus was primarily on
the interpretation of section 9(4A) of the aforesaid Act, which sets out certain
peremptory requirements to be satisfied by an applicant in sequestration proceedings.
The appellants also challenged the refusal of both the High Court and the Supreme
Court of Appeal (SCA) to grant the appellants leave to appeal. The issues presented
before the Constitutional Court (CC) were as follows:
The appellants contended that: firstly, the serving of a petition as contemplated in s
9(4A) of the Insolvency Act includes domestic employees; secondly, the differentiation
