Kernaspekte rondom die voeging van gades en vennote by 'n aansoek vir verpligte sekwestrasie

Abstract

Core aspects pertaining to the joining of spouses and partners in an application for compulsory sequestration

Joining parties as respondents in an application for compulsory sequestration is possible beyond instances where spouses are married in community of property or in cases involving partnerships. The practice in the Gauteng Division of the High Court is that several respondents are not allowed in a joint application for their individual sequestration, unless there is a complete identity of interests. The correctness of this established practice, as supported by the decision in Ferela (Pty) Ltd v Craigie and Others 1980 3 SA 167 (W) and Breetveldt and Others v Van Zyl and Others 1972 1 SA 304 (T), was drawn into question by the findings in Business Partners Ltd v Vecto Trade 87 (Pty) Ltd and Others 2004 5 SA 296 (SE) and Maree and Another v Bobroff and Another [2017] ZAGPJHC (7 March 2017), where the requirement of a “complete identity of interests” was substituted for a “substantial coincidence in the interests” of the respondents. With the 2017 decision in Strutfast (Pty) Ltd v Uys and Another 2017 6 SA 491 (GJ), there is a return to the former practice. The authors analyse this case and contend that it was correctly decided. However, the authors also draw attention to what the Strutfast case did not decide, and postulate that this implies that joining is also possible in alternative situations.