From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.

T R C HOSKING NO & OTHERS v S A COETZEE NO & OTHERS

* * *

The Supreme Court of Appeal today (25 November 2005) held that section 29(1) of the Insolvency Act, which allows for dispositions that are made shortly before sequestration, is not inconsistent with the Constitution.

In a case in which investors in a collapsed investment scheme applied for an order declaring the section to be invalid the SCA held that their appeal against a High Court decision refusing their application had no merit. The case arose from actions brought by the trustees of the insolvent investment scheme to recover moneys that had been repaid to investors during the six months before it was sequestrated.

The SCA said that there were various legitimate legislative choices that could be made in that area of the law and the choice that had been made in the Insolvency Act could not be said to be unconstitutional.