South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, PretoriaYou are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2010 >>  ZAGPPHC 247 | Noteup | LawCite
Firstrand Bank Limited v Ronson Trading (Pty) Ltd (13145/2010)  ZAGPPHC 247 (17 December 2010)
Download original files
Bookmark/share this page
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
CASE NO.: 13145/2010
In the matter between:
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED …..............................................................APPLICANT
RONSON TRADING (PTY) LTD...............................................................RESPONDENT
1. This is an application for the liquidation of the respondent. The application is based on a written loan facility agreement entered into between the applicant and the respondent on 28 August, 2007, and a deed of suretyship dated 30 November, 2007, which the respondent executed in favour of the applicant and on Golden Tau Developments (PTY) LTD.
2. It is not disputed that the amounts claimed were indeed lent and advanced by the applicant as set out in its founding affidavit in the respective sums of R5 500 000 on 28 January, 2008 and Rl 493 400 in accordance with the aforesaid loan facility agreement.
3. It is further not disputed that the funds so advanced to the two entities were repayable within eighteen (18) months from the date the said funds were advanced. I can find nothing in the loan agreement (referred to in paragraph 1 supra) that suggests that such repayments were subject to any suspensive conditions.
4. The respondent offerstas a defence the assertion that the money advanced by the applicant was for a "development loan" and the intention of the parties was that it would be repaid after the completion of the development with the proceeds of units sold in such development.
5. The respondent further avers that the applicant should have recovered the money owing by it from Double Ring (PTY) LTD, the company in whose name the immovable property forming the subject matter of the claim for R5 million is registered. It is further averred that the respondent is well-able to pay as "...Ronson Mozambique, SA, a company within the Ronson Group, has been appointed as development manager in terms of a contract vaiued R120 mi//ion...[and]...A first invoice was issued by Respondent in the amount of US $ 2 886 464.59 in respect of'(sic) the project..."
6. It is further averred that Golden Tau Developments (PTY) LTD, another company within the Ronson Group, received an offer for the purchase of its immovable property in an amount of R110 million..."
7.1 There is no doubt whatsoever that the respondent is indebted to the applicant. The respondent bears the onus, in such circumstances, to demonstrate that the indebtedness is being disputed bona fide and on reasonable grounds (Robson v Wax Works (PTY) Ltd 2001(3) SA 1117 (C) at para 15, page 1122 H-I).
7.2 The respondent's resistance in the matter falls far short of demonstrating any reasonable grounds in disputing its indebtedness. That one or other companies within its group is possessed of adequate funds to pay the amount due to the applicant does not constitute a valid resistance to this application. It is my considered view that there is no "genuine dispute" or "bona fide dispute" between the parties.
8. It is accordingly ordered that the respondent be and is hereby placed under final order of winding up.
JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT