Eamonn Courtney – who started a company using Public Investment Company (PIC) funds – has lost his appeal in the SCA against personal sequestration.

A Business Day report notes Courtney became indebted to Absa for about R54m, but the SCA ruled Courtney was ‘hopelessly insolvent’, explaining processes for sequestrations and set precedent for what people can do to challenge them.

Courtney had set up communications company Allied Mobile Communications. In 2015, it entered into a deal with the PIC, signing a strategic finance and partnership agreement for debt funding facility of R800m.

However, in 2018, Allied Mobile fell into trouble with various partners – including the PIC – which sought to liquidate the company to reclaim R767.5m.

An order liquidating Allied Mobile was granted in 2020.

Courtney failed in his obligations to Absa because he had guaranteed payment for the companies that amounted to R54m. 

Absa began sequestration proceedings against Courtney.

Less than a week later, Courtney and his wife left for Scotland, notes the Business Day report.  This led to a protracted legal battle.

In 2020, the Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) sequestered his estate, appointing trustees to manage it.

He ‘ignored’ obligations to assist the trustees, who claimed he was avoiding responsibilities by being in Scotland. The trustees alleged he had taken valuable assets, such as artworks, to Scotland.

In 2022, they went to court in Scotland to reclaim these assets. Courtney launched his own court application in SA. 

He argued it was wrong for a court in 2020 to grant a ‘final’ sequestration order without first making a ‘provisional’ order.

In 2022, Acting Judge Brad Wanless found that the 2020 final sequestration order was ‘a mistake’ because courts could not grant a final order before a provisional one.

However, Courtney was still not satisfied as he was still being sequestered. He appealed to the SCA.

The SCA has finally ruled against Courtney, says the Business Day report. Writing for a unanimous court, SCA Justice Caroline Nicholls said courts ‘can issue a sequestration order, whether provisional or final’.

However, ‘having chosen not to oppose the application for his sequestration, Mr Courtney was not free to thereafter ignore the (final) order’.

Nicholls criticised Wanless for declaring the final sequestration order a mistake, rendering a ‘confusing and contradictory’ judgment.

Nicholls noted that ‘even an incorrect (court order) exists … until (another) court sets it aside’. 

Courtney’s ‘only option’ was to seek a rescission of the final sequestration order. She ordered Courtney to pay legal costs.

Full Business Day report

Judgment