Formele onreëlmatighede, materiële onreëlmatighede, regsgeldigheid van verrigtinge en Artikel 157 van die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Author: Stander, A.L.
• Pages: 249-269
• Published date: 12 October 2020
• Date: 12 October 2020

249

FORMELE ONREËLMATIGHEDE, MATERIËLE

ONREËLMATIGHEDE, REGSGELDIGHEID

VAN VERRIGTINGE EN ARTIKEL 157 VAN DIE

INSOLVENSIEWET 24 VAN 1936

AL Stander

BIuris LLM LLD

Professor, Fakulteit Regte, Noordwes Universiteit, Potchefstroomkampus

HJ Kloppers

BComm LLB LLM LLD Nagraadse Diploma: Finansiële beplanning

Mede-professor, Fakulteit Regte, Noordwes Universiteit, Potchefstroomkampus

Abstract

The application of section 157(1) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (“the Act”)

that concerns a formal defect or irregularity requires careful consideration.

Many court cases have already been decided on this aspect and over the

years there have been several endeavours to dene “a formal defect”. In the

Gauteng Division of the High Court and the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the

High Court, there are currently different approaches to the application of this

phrase in section 4(1) of the Insolvency Act, due to different interpretations

of the term “formal defect”. In the rst-mentioned division, it is the view

that if section 4(1), read with section 157, means that a notice of surrender

published more than 30 days before the relevant date is valid (provided that

a court does not in due course nd that a substantial injustice has occurred),

it would create uncertainty. Effectively, a debtor will be able to secure and

control a suspension of execution. That was clearly not what the legislature

intended. In the KwaZulu-Natal division, the view is that the premature

publication of a notice of surrender of an estate under section 4(1) is a

formal defect or irregularity within the meaning of that phrase in section

157(1) of the Act. The publication itself is therefore not rendered invalid by

the defect. The extent to which the applicant has complied with or deviated

from the procedural requirements of the Act is a factor to be considered

in exercising the court’s discretion in terms of section 6 of the Insolvency

Act. However, the different approaches of the two divisions of the High Court

create uncertainty. In the recent case of Swart v Starbuck, the Constitutional

Court applied, among other things, section 157(1) to maintain the validity of

an action by the Master. It is argued in this article that neither the majority

decision nor the minority ruling has given sufcient consideration to the

characterisation of “formal defect” in order to address the uncertainty about

the application of this section.

Stellenbosch Law Review Vol 30 No 2 indb 249 2020/09/16 11 33 AM

(2020) 31 Stell LR 249

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

250 STELL LR 2020 2

Keywords:

Section 157(1) Insolvency Act 24 of 1936, s 4(1) Insolvency Act 24 of 1936,

formal defect or irregularity, condonation of defects, material defect,

substantial injustice

Sleutelwoorde:

Art 157(1) Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936, art 4(1) Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936,

formele gebrek of onreëlmatigheid, kondonering van gebreke, wesenlike

gebrek, substansiële onreg

1 Inleiding

Die regspraak rakende die omskrywing van “formele gebrek” soos gebruik

in artikel 157(1) van die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 (“die Wet”) (vir

doeleindes van die bepaling van die regsgeldigheid van verrigtinge kragtens

hierdie wet) slaag nie daarin om ’n presiese of vaste toets te formuleer vir

wanneer ’n gebrek, onreëlmatigheid, of nie-nakoming van ’n bepaling van

die Insolvensiewet as ’n formele gebrek of onreëlmatigheid bestempel moet

word nie. Dit bemoeilik pogings om met sekerheid te bepaal of gebrekkige

verrigtinge gegrond op ’n bepaling van die Insolvensiewet steeds as

regsgeldig beskou kan word, nieteenstaande sodanige gebrek.1

In die omgangstaal word die toepassing van die artikel dikwels verwoord as

die oorsien/ignorering/verskoon van foute of gebreke. Daar word verduidelik

dat wanneer die gebrek bloot formeel is, dit deur die hof gekondoneer – dus

oorgesien of verskoon – sal word. Daarteenoor sal wesenlike foute of gebreke

nie gekondoneer word nie – dus nie geïgnoreer word nie. Deur die jare is

verskeie (en in die meeste gevalle onbevredigende) toetse aangewend om te

bepaal wanneer ’n gebrek formeel of wesenlik is. Daar is aangevoer dat as

die bewoording van die betrokke artikel gebiedend is, en daar nie-voldoening

was, die gebrek wesenlik is. Indien die bewoording van die bepaling egter

bloot aanwysend is, is die gebrek formeel.2 ’n Ander toets is om te bepaal

1 Sien bv Ex parte Marais 1957 3 SA 311 (W); Ex parte Mandelstam 1949 3 SA 1210 (O); Ex parte

Proxenos 1953 4 SA 593 (O); Ex parte Van der Merwe 1963 4 SA 246 (T); Ex parte Hetzler 1969

3 SA 90 (T); Ex parte Hogg 1950 2 SA 606 (N); Ex parte Lategan and Lategan 1951 2 SA 242

(K); Ex parte Foley 1954 3 SA 1 (O); Ex parte Jansen 1960 4 SA 66 (O); Ex parte Klopper 1965

2 SA 107 (O); Melcost Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kruger 1968 2 SA 69 (O); Ex parte Slabbert 1960

4 SA 677 (T); Ex parte Small, Ex parte Bezuidenhout 1974 3 SA 435 (O); Ex parte Oosthuysen

1995 2 SA 694 (T); Ex parte Harmse 2005 1 SA 323 (N); Western Flyer Manufacturing (Pty)

Ltd v Dewrance NNO in re Dewrance NNO v North West Transport Investments (Pty) Ltd (under

judicial management) 2007 6 SA 459 (B) par 48].

2 Ex parte Marais 1957 3 SA 311 (W); Ex parte Mandelstam 1949 3 SA 1210 (O); Ex parte

Proxenos 1953 4 SA 593 (O); Ex parte Van der Merwe 1963 4 SA 246 (T); Ex parte Hetzler 1969

3 SA 90 (T). Kyk bv ook die hof se bespreking in Ex parte Hogg 1950 2 SA 606 (N); Ex parte

Lategan and Lategan 1951 2 SA 242 (K). Daar is egter ’n aantal voorbeelde van gebreke wat as

Stellenbosch Law Review Vol 30 No 2 indb 250 2020/09/16 11 33 AM

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd