THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable

Case No: 693/15

In the matter between:

THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
FIRST APPELLANT
CHIEF MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
SECOND APPELLANT
and
THE SOUTH AFRICAN RESTRUCTURING AND
INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION
FIRST RESPONDENT
THE CONCERNED INSOLVENCY
PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION
SECOND RESPONDENT
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
THIRD RESPONDENT
MANAGING AGENTS
SOLIDARITY
FOURTH RESPONDENT
VERENIGING VAN REGSLUI VIR AFRIKAANS
FIFTH RESPONDENT

Neutral Citation:
Minister of Justice v The SA Restructuring &
Insolvency Practitioners Association (693/15) [2016]
ZASCA 196 (2 December 2016)
Coram:
Mpati P, Wallis, Swain, Mathopo and Van der Merwe
JJA
Heard:
13 September 2016
Delivered:
2 December 2016
Summary:
Constitutional law: Equality and affirmative action
measures: the ambit of the test for equality.
Insolvency law: Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 s 18(1) – policy issued by Minister
in terms of s 18(1) – policy also applicable to appointments of liquidators in
terms of ss 368 and 374 of Companies Act 61 of 1973 – aim to transform the
insolvency industry to make it more accessible to previously disadvantaged
insolvency practitioners – policy unconstitutional and irrational – policy
declared unlawful and invalid.

_________________________________________________________

ORDER
________________________________________________________

On appeal from the Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape
Town (Katz AJ sitting as court of first instance): judgment reported sub
nom SA Restructuring and Insolvency Practitioners Association v
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development & others, and
another application 2015 (2) SA 430 (WCC).
1. The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs
of two counsel.
________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________

Mathopo JA (Mpati P, Wallis, Swain and Van der Merwe JJA
concurring):

[1] This appeal concerns the constitutionality of a policy that seeks
to regulate the appointment of insolvency practitioners, primarily as
provisional trustees and liquidators, but also as co-trustees and co-
liquidators, as well as appointments to certain other comparable
positions under various statutes. In this judgment I will deal with the
policy as if it applied only to appointments of trustees on insolvency,
but it must be read mutatis mutandis as applying to and including all
the appointments that are the subject of the policy. Where I refer
expressly to liquidators, as opposed to trustees, I am referring to
liquidators, either provisional or final, appointed in terms of the
Companies Act 61 of 1973, as amended, or under the Close
Corporations Act 69 of 1984.

[2] The policy was determined by the Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Development pursuant to his powers in terms of
s 158(2)1 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (the Act), and was to come
into operation on 31 March 2014. Insofar as it related to appointments
under other statutes the promulgation of the policy occurred in terms of
corresponding powers.2 The first respondent challenged the policy by
way of an application in two parts; part A being an interim interdict
restraining its implementation, and part B review proceedings directed
at having it set aside. In the Western Cape Division of the High Court,
Gamble J dealt with the urgent application in respect of Part A and
interdicted the appellants from implementing the policy. The review
application in Part B came before Katz AJ in which the policy was
challenged on four bases. These were that it infringed the right to
equality provided for in s 9 of the Constitution; it unlawfully fettered the
discretion of the Master; is ultra vires the Act; and was irrational.

[3] Acting in terms of s 172(1)(a) of the Constitution, the high court
declared the policy inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. An
application for leave to appeal was refused. This appeal is with the
leave of this court.

Litigation history
[4] The appellants are the Minister of Justice and Constitutional
Development (the Minister) and the Chief Master of the High Court of
South Africa (the Chief Master).3 The respondents are The South
African
Restructuring
and
Insolvency
Practitioners
Association

1 This subsection reads as follows:
„The Minister may determine policy for the appointment of a curator bonis, trustee,
provisional trustee or co-trustee by the Master in order to promote consistency,
fairness, transparency and the achievement of equality for persons previously
disadvantaged by unfair discrimination.‟
2 Section 10(1A)(a) of the Close Corporations Acts 69 of 1984 and s 368 of the old
Companies Act 61 of 1973.
3 The office of the Chief Master as the executive officer of all Masters‟ offices was
introduced by the promulgation of the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 16 of 2003
which came into effect on 9 July 2004. Section 2(a)(i) of the Administration of Estates
Act 66 of 1965 makes provision for the appointment of a Chief Master of the High
Court and a Master of each High Court.

(SARIPA), The Concerned Insolvency Practitioners Association
(CIPA), the National Association of Managing Agents (NAMA),
Solidarity and the Vereniging van Regslui vir Afrikaans. Originally there
were two applications; the first one being that referred to in [2] above
brought by SARIPA against the Minister and the Master. The second
was brought by CIPA in the Gauteng Division, Pretoria of the High
Court to declare the policy to be unconstitutional. That application and
the present application by agreement were heard together by the court
a quo.4 NAMA and Solidarity were granted leave to intervene by the
high court, and the Vereniging van Regslui vir Afrikaans was joined as
a party. The respondents represent various interested groups of
persons who are involved, either as insolvency practitioners, legal
practitioners and academics, creditors and employees, in the
sequestration or liquidation of insolvent estates.

Background
The appointment of insolvency practitioners prior to the
impugned policy
[5] The background relating to the history of the impugned policy
was described comprehensively by the court a quo. The administration
of insolvent estates was originally regulated by the Insolvency Act 32
of 1916. This placed the responsibility for appointing provisional
trustees on the court. With the advent of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
(the Act) that duty and power was transferred to the Master. Before the
Act was amended, in 2004, the Master‟s power of appointment of a
provisional trustee or liquidator was entirely discretionary.5 Currently, in
terms of s 18(1) of the Act, the Master may, after an estate has been
sequestrated, in accordance with the Policy determined by the

4 Presumably an order was made in terms of s 27(1)(b) of the Superior Courts Act
removing the application by CIPA from the Gauteng Division, Pretoria to the Western
Cape Division.
5 Prior to its amendment, s 18(1) read:
„As soon as an estate has been sequestrated (whether provisionally or finally) or
when a person appointed as trustee ceases to be a trustee or to function as such, the
Master may appoint a provisional trustee to the estate in question who shall give
security to the satisfaction of the Master for the proper performance of his duties as
provisional trustee and shall hold office until the appointment of a trustee.

Minister, appoint a provisional trustee. The Minister exercises his
powers in terms of s 158 of the Act when determining the policy
envisaged in s 18. It is the Master who, in terms of this policy, appoints
the provisional trustee, once a provisional sequestration order has
been granted. The provisional trustee will administer and control the
estate until such time that the trustee is appointed at the first meeting
of creditors. The Master may still, however, be involved inasmuch as
he or she is empowered by s 57(5) of the Act, whenever they consider
it desirable, to appoint a co-trustee.

[6] It appears that the present policy is the first of its kind
promulgated under s 158 of the Act. Previous policies and directives
were issued by the Minister, during 1998 and 2001, aimed at making
the insolvency industry accessible to previously disadvantaged
persons. However, these policies were not policies promulgated in
terms of any specific provision of the Act. The 2001 Policy made
provision for a previously disadvantaged person to be appointed as a
co-provisional trustee in every estate. The main rationale behind
appointing a previously disadvantaged individual was that he or she
could learn from the experienced trustee how properly to administer an
estate, in order to gain sufficient experience and exposure in the
industry. The Master, in accordance with the 2001 policy, created a
separate panel of names for this category of practitioner.

[7] The 2001 policy was implemented as follows. Creditors, on
becoming aware of an application for the provisional sequestration of
an estate, would indicate their support for a provisional trustee by filing
a requisition which indicated the extent of their claims against the
estate, and their provisional trustee of choice. The Master‟s office
would review the requisitions and, once satisfied that they were in
order, ordinarily appoint a provisional trustee using the following as
guidelines: i) the candidate nominated by the creditors who held the
majority in value of claims; ii) the candidate nominated by the creditors
who held the majority in number of claims; iii) the candidate who

enjoyed the support of the employees or trade union In addition a
previously disadvantaged individual or individuals would be appointed
from a list held by the Master. All the individuals identified as suitable
candidates to be appointed in that estate, would then be informed that
they should immediately lodge with the Master bonds of security for the
estimated value of the assets of the estate involved. Thereafter, the
Master would issue certificates of appointment as provisional trustees.
The provisional trustee would then take charge of the estate and
immediately administer the estate until the first meeting of creditors. At
the first meeting, creditors who had proved their claims against the
estate were entitled to elect trustees and the person receiving a
majority of the votes, by number and value of claims, would be elected
as trustee. If one person gained a majority in number, and another a
majority in value, they would both be elected. The Master would then
ordinarily6 confirm those who had been elected and would also confirm
the appointment of the previously disadvantaged individual, if that
person was not elected as trustee by the creditors. This system, known
as the requisition or referral system, has according to the Minister, not
achieved its purpose of including previously disadvantaged persons in
the appointment of insolvency practitioners. That proposition is hotly
disputed by both SARIPA and CIPA.

[8] As noted above the Judicial Matters Amendment Act 16 of
2003, made provision for the appointment of a Chief Master of the High
Courts who serves as the executive officer of all the Masters‟ offices
and exercises control, direction and supervision over all the Masters.
The Minister‟s power to determine policy for the appointment of
practitioners was also provided for in the Judicial Matters Amendment
Act, which conferred the power to lay down policy in relation to the
appointment of insolvency practitioners.

6 The master has a discretion under s 57(1) of the Act in certain circumstances not to
appoint a person elected as trustee at a first meeting of creditors, but this occurs
fairly infrequently and does not affect the discussion in the body of the judgment.

[9] Subsequent to the promulgation of the Judicial Matters
Amendment Act, the Chief Master revoked the „Lategan Document‟, a
document issued by a Deputy Master in the High Court in Pretoria,
which purported to deal with the appointment of practitioners. In
surveys conducted over the period 2011 to 2013 by the Chief Master,
the picture appeared to be a bleak one for the advancement of
previously disadvantaged practitioners. The numbers showed that far
fewer previously disadvantaged practitioners were appointed, than was
reflected on the list of active insolvency practitioners. In 2013, the
national statistics, which only focused on race and gender, showed
that the workload amongst insolvency practitioners was unevenly
distributed: White males received approximately 43%; White females
received approximately 10%; African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese
females received approximately 4% and African, Coloured, Indian and
Chinese males received approximately 30%. I leave aside the fact that
this is significantly short of 100%, which is unexplained.

[10] The impugned policy was formulated against the backdrop of
what has been set out above. It went through various phases, which
included consultations meetings and comments from interested
parties.7 For the purpose of this judgment we need not detain
ourselves with these phases, save to mention that the policy was
published in the Government Gazette by the Minister on 7 February
2014.8 The Chief Master has also issued several directives in terms of
the policy to deal with its implementation.

The Policy
[11] At the heart of the dispute between the parties lie clauses 6 and
7 of the policy. According to the appellants, the objective of the policy
is to „promote consistency, fairness, transparency and the achievement

7 The extent of these consultations is in dispute.
8 Department of Justice and Constitutional Development Regulations, GN R77, GG
37287, 7 February 2014. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Policy were amended with effect
from 17 October 2014, and the notice was gazette by Department of Justice and
Constitutional Development Regulations, GN R789, GG 38088, 17 October 2014.

of
equality
for
persons
previously
disadvantaged
by
unfair
discrimination‟ and it is intended to form the basis for the
transformation of the insolvency industry. The policy replaces all
previous policies and guidelines, in relation to the appointment of
insolvency practitioners, used in the Masters‟ offices. It applies
amongst others, not only to the appointment of provisional trustees by
the Master in terms of s 18(1) of the Act but also to a range of other
appointments. The policy sets out the procedure to be followed by
Masters when making a discretionary appointment and their power to
do so.

[12] In terms of clause 6.1 of the policy, every Master‟s List must be
divided into various categories. Clause 6 reads:
„Insolvency practitioners on every Master‟s List must be divided into the
following categories:
„Category A: African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese females who became
South African citizens before 27 April 1994;
Category B:
African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese males who became
South African citizens before 27 April 1994;
Category C:
White females who became South African citizens before 27
April 1994;
Category D:
African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese females and males,
and White females, who became South Africa citizens on or after 27 April
1994 and White males who are South African citizens,
and within each category be arranged in alphabetical order according to their
surnames and, in the event of similar surnames, their first names. Insolvency
practitioners added to the list after the compilation thereof must be added at
the end of the relevant category.
6.2
A Master‟s List must distinguish between “senior practitioners”, being
insolvency practitioners who have been appointed at least once every year
within the last five years and “junior practitioners”, being insolvency
practitioners who have not been appointed as such at least once every year
within the last five years but who satisfy the Master that they have sufficient
infrastructure and experience to be appointed alone.

The senior and junior practitioners must be arranged where they fit
alphabetically in Category A to D on the same Master‟s List.‟

[13] The appointment process is then set out in clause 7 which reads
as follows:
„7. Appointment of insolvency practitioners by Masters of High Courts
7.1 Insolvency practitioners must be appointed consecutively in the ratio
A4: B3: C2: D1, where-
"A" represents African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese females who became
South African citizens before 27 April 1994;
"B" represents African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese males who became
South African citizens before 27 April 1994;
"C" represents White females who became South African citizens before 27
April 1994;
"D" represents African, Coloured, Indian and Chinese females and males,
and White females, who have become South African citizens on or after 27
April 1994 and White males who are South African citizens,
and the numbers 4: 3: 2: 1 represent the number of insolvency practitioners
that must be appointed in that sequence in respect of each such category.
7.2 Within the different categories on a Master's List, insolvency practitioners
must, subject to paragraph 7.3, be appointed in alphabetical order.
7.3 The Master may, having regard to the complexity of the matter and the
suitability of the next-in-line insolvency practitioner but subject to any
applicable law, appoint a senior practitioner jointly with the junior or senior
practitioner appointed in alphabetical order. If the Master makes such a joint
appointment, the Master must record the reason therefor and, on request,
provide the other insolvency practitioner therewith.
. . . „
This means that the Master must appoint insolvency practitioners
consecutively in the ratio A4:B3:C2:D1 across all classes of
appointments. In other words, the Master must appoint four
practitioners from category A, then three from category B, then two
from category C and finally one from category D, before returning to
category A to appoint another four practitioners. When appointing
within a category, the Master must proceed down the alphabetical list
until the end is reached and then start again at the top. There is no

power to depart from this, but the Master may in the circumstances set
out in clause 7.3 appoint an additional trustee. A great amount of the
argument before us was addressed to the extent of the discretion that
this clause gives to Masters.

[14] It is common cause that the policy is aimed at the discretionary
appointments, in terms of the Act, of insolvency practitioners by the
Master. The policy further obliges the Chief Master to issue directives
to be used by all Masters in order to implement and monitor the
application of the policy. The Chief Master issued three such directives
in 2014.

[15] The policy principally implicates the provisions of the Act that
deal with the appointment of provisional trustees and co-trustees. The
relevant legislative provisions governing the appointment of provisional
trustees are as follows. Section 18 of the Act states:
„(1)
As soon as an estate has been sequestrated (whether provisionally or
finally) or when a person appointed as trustee ceases to be trustee or to
function as such, the Master may, in accordance with policy determined by
the Minister, appoint a provisional trustee to the estate in question who shall
give security to the satisfaction of the Master for the proper performance of
his or her duties as provisional trustee and shall hold office until the
appointment of a trustee.
(2)
At any time before the meeting of the creditors of an insolvent estate
in terms of section forty, the Master may, subject to the provisions of
subsection (3) of this section, give such directions to the provisional trustee
as could be given to a trustee by the creditors at a meeting of creditors.
(3)
A provisional trustee shall have the powers and the duties of a
trustee, as provided in this Act, except that without the authority of the court
or for the purpose of obtaining such authority he shall not bring or defend any
legal proceedings and that without the authority of the court or Master he
shall not sell any property belonging to the estate in question. Such sale shall
furthermore be after such notices and subject to such conditions as the
Master may direct.
. . . .‟

[16] According to the above section the power to appoint provisional
trustees resides with the Master, and the Master‟s discretion is to be
exercised in accordance with the policy determined by the Minister in
terms of s 158(2) of the Act. As noted earlier in this judgment the
Minister is also empowered, in terms of s 10(1A)(a) of the Close
Corporations Acts 69 of 1984,9 and s 368 of the old Companies Act 61
of 1973,10 to determine the policy for the appointment of liquidators
and provisional liquidators. The policy thus applies to these
appointments as well.

[17] It is apparent that provisional trustees and provisional liquidators
play a significant role in the liquidation of an estate and the winding-up
of a company or close corporation. They are appointed to control and
administer the estate or the property of the company until a trustee or
liquidator has been appointed. Only persons included on a Master‟s list
of insolvency practitioners may be appointed as provisional trustees or
liquidators, and their appointment must be done in accordance with the
procedures set out in clauses six and seven of the policy. Unlike a final
trustee appointed at the first meeting of creditors, the provisional
trustee takes instructions from the Master, who stands in the position
of the creditors (s 18(2) of the Act). They may be authorised by the
Master or the court to sell property belonging to the estate. Experience
in the high court suggests that this authority is frequently sought and
granted.

9 This section reads: „The Minister may determine policy for the appointment of a
liquidator by the Master in order to promote consistency, fairness, transparency and
the achievement of equality for persons previously disadvantaged by unfair
discrimination.‟
10 The section provides that:
„As soon as a winding-up order has been made in relation to a company, or a special
resolution for a voluntary winding-up of a company has been registered in terms of
section 200, the Master may, in accordance with policy determined by the Minister,
appoint any suitable person as provisional liquidator of the company concerned, who
shall give security to the satisfaction of the Master for the proper performance of his
or her duties as provisional liquidator and who shall hold office until the appointment
of a liquidator.‟

[18] The policy replaces all previous policies and guidelines relating
to the appointment of insolvency practitioners and envisages that only
persons included on the Master‟s list may be appointed. It is one of the
policy considerations that the Master's list must be revised before the
policy is implemented. To be included on the list an interested person
must have applied, supported by an affidavit. Among the requirements
for appointments include, that the appellant must have sufficient
infrastructure within the area of jurisdiction of the Master in question.
They must also be appropriately qualified in the field of law or
commerce and hold a four years‟ bachelor‟s degree, or have five years
suitable experience in administration and winding-up of an insolvent
estate, at the time when the policy comes into effect.

[19] The policy empowers the Master to appoint provisional trustees
on a rotational basis in line with the categories set out in clauses 6 and
7 which are based on race and gender. The policy does not provide for
the wishes of creditors to be taken into account in these discretionary
appointments.

The High Court
[20] The high court agreed with the respondents and found that the
policy puts in place a rigid regime in which the Master becomes a
rubberstamp, compelled to appoint designated persons by rote from
the Master‟s list, which is arranged alphabetically on a race and gender
basis. It also found that the policy constituted an unlawful fettering of
his discretion. The high court adopted an approach that, in so far as
the policy aimed to transform and make the insolvency industry
accessible to previously disadvantaged individuals, it needed to do
more than increase numbers. The policy had to ensure that there was
a correlation between the individual‟s skill set and the requirements for
the role, within the system provided for by the legislation. The policy
failed, as a remedial measure, to provide clear timelines or targets to
determine whether it was likely to achieve its intended objective. As a

result of this the high court concluded that there was insufficient
evidence to support the notion that the policy was likely to achieve its
aim of transforming the industry within a specific period, or at all. It also
took issue with what it found to be a mechanical application of the
policy which failed to appreciate and provide any scope allowing the
Master to take into account the skills, knowledge, expertise and
experience of the practitioner when appointing a trustee. As a result, it
held that the policy could not pass constitutional muster and declared
the policy inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.

Equality submissions
[21] The mainstay of the appellant‟s argument was that the policy
was intended to form the basis of transformation of the insolvency
industry. The respondents accept that the object of the policy was to
promote consistency, fairness, transparency and the achievement of
equality for insolvency practitioners previously disadvantaged by unfair
discrimination. SARIPA contended that the policy will not achieve
these objectives and that it would undermine the transformation
already achieved in the industry mainly by detracting materially from
the business of skilled previously disadvantaged practitioners.

[22] The appellants argued that the policy was a measure
contemplated by s 9(2) of the Constitution in that it promotes the
achievement of equality and was designed to protect and advance
persons (and categories of persons) previously disadvantaged by
unfair discrimination. The purpose of the policy was to protect and
develop previously disadvantaged insolvency practitioners who had
suffered unfair discrimination because of past injustices. These past
injustices were being preserved by the requisition system of
appointment of provisional trustees or liquidators, which system was
creditor driven. The appellants attacked the requisition system as
reducing previously disadvantaged insolvency practitioners to mere
beggars and submitted that it perpetuated the myth that previously
disadvantaged insolvency practitioners are incompetent. During oral

submissions before us, they submitted that if properly applied, the
policy would help to eradicate the socially constructed barriers
inhibiting entry, by previously disadvantaged practitioners, into the
insolvency industry. It would also root out systemic or institutionalised
racism prevalent in the current practice of the requisition system. We
were urged to incline to the view that the current system for the
appointment of provisional trustees or liquidators was skewed in favour
of previously advantaged practitioners who obtained knowledge and
skills at the expense of the disadvantaged practitioners, as a result of
the oppressive and discriminatory practices which existed in the past.

[23] In support of their submissions, the appellants relied on the
three pronged test espoused in Minister of Finance & another v Van
Heerden 2004 (6) SA 121 (CC) para 37 where Moseneke J said the
following:
„When a measure is challenged as violating the equality provision, its
defender may meet the claim by showing that the measure is contemplated
by s 9(2) in that it promotes the achievement of equality and is designed to
protect and advance persons disadvantaged by unfair discrimination. It
seems to me that to determine whether a measure falls within s 9(2) the
enquiry is threefold. The first yardstick relates to whether the measure targets
persons or categories of persons who have been disadvantaged by unfair
discrimination; the second is whether the measure is designed to protect or
advance such persons or categories of persons; and the third requirement is
whether the measure promotes the achievement of equality.‟

[24] The appellants contended that the policy met all three
requirements and that it was neither unfair, nor presumed to be unfair.
It was submitted that it would facilitate access to the industry and
restore the previously disadvantaged insolvency practitioners‟ rights to
equality, dignity and would also realise their right to follow their trade,
profession or occupation – which was previously denied and was now
being curtailed by the requisition system. In essence we were urged to

accept that the measures proposed in the policy will ameliorate the
imbalances of the past.

[25] As regards the requisition system the argument advanced is
that this system adds to the social barriers to entry and perpetuated
the imbalances of the past, because it allows creditors to determine
and dictate who should be appointed in the provisional phase. The
requisition system was inimical to s 9(2) of the Constitution and was
not a measure which promoted the achievement of equality. It was
urged upon us that the policy appointment had two benefits: (a) first,
that disadvantaged persons from the categories identified would be
appointed to larger estates by virtue of being the next-in-line
practitioner and (b) second, that they would benefit when they were
appointed as co-practitioners.

[26] The respondents, however, submitted that the transformation
which had been attained in the insolvency industry would be
undermined. Previously disadvantaged individuals would lose work
currently assigned to them because of their skill and expertise. Under
the current system previously disadvantaged individuals are appointed
as co-provisional trustees in every insolvent estate. The crux of the
respondents‟
submission
is
that
the mechanical
process
of
appointments contemplated in the policy will do more harm than good,
because
some
of
the
previously
disadvantaged
insolvency
practitioners will not be allocated the same amount of work, owing to
the roster system.

[27] It was contended by SARIPA that the policy discriminated
against white males, white females and African, Indian, Chinese or
Coloured males, in varying degrees. They also submitted that it
discriminated against African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese persons
who became South African citizens after 27 April 1994. Having regard
to the test in Van Heerden, the policy was almost an absolute barrier to
white males, who would be assigned no more than 10% of the

available work, even though many of them were active in the
profession.  They submitted that the „rigid race and gender-based‟
categories and ratios amounted to the imposition of quotas as opposed
to
numerical
targets,
rendering
the
policy
constitutionally
impermissible.

[28] Under the requisition system, employees and trade unions have
a say in the appointment of insolvency practitioners, a factor which
Solidarity as a trade union, appreciates. Their submission was that the
policy‟s exclusion of the employees‟ or trade union‟s voice from the
appointment resulted in the policy lacking a rational connection to its
objective. Solidarity‟s argument that the policy fails to take the role of
trade unions and employees into account cannot be disputed. The
approach by both the Minister and the Chief Master was that this was
irrelevant, as was the exclusion of any role for creditors in regard to
provisional appointments.

[29] Affirmative action measures are designed to ensure that suitably
qualified people, who were previously disadvantaged, have access to
equal opportunities and are equitably represented in all occupation
categories and levels.11 They must be suitably qualified in order not to
compromise efficiency at the altar of remedial employment. Due to our
country‟s history and the constitutional obligation, post democracy, to
redress the past injustices, measures directed at affirmative action may
in some instances embody preferential treatment and numerical goals,
but cannot amount to quotas. In advancing employment equity and
transformation, flexibility and inclusiveness is required. Remedial
measures must operate in a progressive manner assisting those who,
in the past, were deprived of the opportunity to access the relevant

11 This is recognised in terms of s 9(2) of the Constitution which states: „Equality
includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the
achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or
advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination
may be taken.‟

requirements necessary to enter the insolvency profession, but such
remedial measures must not trump the rights of previously advantaged
insolvency practitioners. Rigidity in the application of the policy or
which has the effect of establishing a barrier to the future advancement
of such previously advantaged insolvency practitioners, is frowned
upon and runs contrary to s 9(2) of the Constitution. These principles
emerge from the decisions of the Constitutional Court to be referred to
below.

[30] The essence of the parties‟ contentions on the equality leg is
this. They agree that the policy is designed to be a remedial measure
within the meaning of s 9(2) of the Constitution and implicates the right
of every citizen to pursue their career of choice, trade and profession,
a right afforded in s 21 of the Constitution. The respondents, however,
submit that the policy was rigid in its application and calculated to
establish a barrier to the future advancement of affected people,
contrary to s 9(2) of the Constitution.

[31] It was stated by Moseneke ACJ in South African Police Service
v Solidarity OBO Barnard [2014] ZACC 23; 2014 (6) SA 123 (CC) that:
„[32]
Remedial measures must be implemented in a way that advances the
position of people who have suffered past discrimination. Equally, they must
not unduly invade the human dignity of those affected by them, if we are truly
to achieve a non-racial, non-sexist and socially inclusive society.
[33] We must remind ourselves that restitution measures, important as
they are, cannot do all the work to advance social equity. A socially inclusive
society idealised by the Constitution is a function of a good democratic state,
for the one part, and the individual and collective agency of its citizenry, for
the other. Our state must direct reasonable public resources to achieve
substantive equality “for full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms”.
It must take reasonable, prompt and effective measures to realise the socio-
economic needs of all, especially the vulnerable. In the words of our
Preamble the state must help “improve the quality of life of all citizens and
free the potential of each person”. That ideal would be within grasp only
through governance that is effective, transparent, accountable and

responsive. Our public representatives will also do well to place a premium
on an honest, efficient and economic use of public resources.‟

[32] Remedial measures must therefore operate in a progressive
manner assisting those who, in the past, were deprived, in one way or
another, of the opportunity to practise in the insolvency profession.
Such remedial measures must not, however, encroach, in an
unjustifiable manner, upon the human dignity of those affected by
them. In particular, as stressed by Moseneke J in para 41 of Van
Heerden, when dealing with remedial measures, it is not sufficient that
they may work to the benefit of the previously disadvantaged. They
must not be arbitrary, capricious or display naked preference. If they
do they can hardly be said to achieve the constitutionally authorised
end. One form of arbitrariness, caprice or naked preference is the
implementation of a quota system, or one so rigid as to be substantially
indistinguishable from a quota. This explains why s 15(3) of the
Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, permits preferential treatment and
numerical goals, but disallows quotas.12 Counsel for the Minister and
the Chief Master accepted that if the policy imposed a quota or rigid
system for the appointment of insolvency practitioners as trustees it
would infringe these principles and would have to be struck down.

[33] The policy embodied in clause 7.1 embodies a strict allocation
of appointments in accordance with race and gender. Insolvency
practitioners are for this purpose divided into four groups stratified by
race, gender and age. Appointments are to be made from these
groups in strict order from group A to group B and thence to group C,
and finally group D. Within each group allocations are to be made
alphabetically. The Chief Master‟s directives served to establish
committees to monitor compliance by Masters with the policy. The

12 South African Police Service v Solidarity (obo Barnard) 2014 (6) SA 123 (CC) para
42; Solidarity v Department of Correctional Services 2016 (5) SA 594 (CC) paras 51
and 103-109.

clause contains none of the flexibility and all of the rigidity that the
Constitutional Court has said is impermissible.

[34] In an endeavour to overcome the rigidity of clause 7.1 counsel
for the Minister and Chief Master argued that the requisite flexibility
was to be found in the Master‟s powers under clause 7.3. She
submitted that this vested the Master with a discretion in every case. I
disagree. Clause 7.3 does not permit a departure from the appointment
process prescribed in clause 7.1 of the policy. It provides the Master
with a mechanism, in an ill-defined range of cases, to compensate to
some degree for the fact that the policy dictates the appointment of
someone not qualified to undertake the task, either because of its
complexity, or because of their unsuitability – the two are not mutually
exclusive. This power of appointment does not resolve the fact that
clause 7.1 requires the Master to make an appointment in accordance
with a rigid quota. After all the unqualified person is still to be
appointed and to have their share in the fees accruing from the
administration of the estate, even though the reason for invoking
clause 7.3 is that they are not qualified or unsuitable to perform that
task. The Master‟s ability to insert a backstop into the process does not
detract from the need in every case to comply with clause 7.1. The
system is arbitrary and capricious.

[35] In its recent decision in Solidarity v Department of Correctional
Services, the Constitutional Court was divided over whether the
Department of Correctional Services‟ policy regarding appointments
embodied a quota. The difference between the two judgments (Zondo
J and Nugent AJ) was that Zondo J held that the power of the National
Commissioner to depart from the strict numerical categorisation by
race and gender in the policy – which was almost identical to the policy
in the present case – saved it from being an impermissible quota. Here
there is no such general discretion. The policy is entirely dependent on
a strict racial and gender allocation of appointments and is arbitrary
with no saving discretion. The Master has a remedial power that does

not avoid the result of the policy being applied. That is not the kind of
general discretion that Zondo J held saved the policy before the
Constitutional Court.

[36] The rigid and unavoidable appointment process prescribed by
clause 7.1 is arbitrary. It is also in my view capricious because it has
been formulated with no reference to its impact when applied in reality.
One illustration of how capricious the system is arises from a
consideration of the fact that it has no regard to the relative number of
insolvency practitioners falling in each category. The Chief Master‟s
statistics and schedules, although contested, reveal that the majority of
insolvency practitioners at present are White males, followed by
African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese males, White females and
African, Indian, Coloured and Chinese females. The 4 appointments in
category A will benefit persons in that category – Black, Indian,
Coloured and Chinese women – to a far greater extent than the ratio
4:3:2:1 might suggest. Because this is the smallest group of
practitioners, the turn of members of the group to be appointed will
come round relatively rapidly (4 in every 10 appointments), while that
of White males and insolvency practitioners of every race and gender
born after 27 April 1994 (1 in every 10 from among a far larger group)
will come round but rarely.13 The prejudice to young Black men and
women who have recently completed their studies, are well qualified
and wishing to enter practice as an insolvency practitioner, is obvious.
There is no evidence either that this was considered by the Minister
when formulating the policy.

[37] Nor is there any evidence that the implementation of the policy
is even practical at present given the disproportion in numbers
between the four groups. The policy makes no allowance for a
practitioner to refuse an appointment or for what the Master is to do in
that case. In a small largely rural area there may be only a handful of

13 An early analysis, when the categories were differently composed, indicated that
White males would get fewer than 4% of all appointments.

insolvency practitioners falling into category A, yet they are to be
appointed in forty percent of cases. It is unclear what is to happen if
they are too busy to undertake more work. The Master has no
discretion to appoint someone from Category B without departing from
the policy. But even if this is viewed as an extreme case and the
priority given to people in category A prompts more people in that
category to enter the business of an insolvency practitioner, that will
not matter if they were born after 27 April 1994. Why young people
should be discriminated against in this fashion escapes me. The
disproportionate treatment of the different groups is obvious and no
rational reason has been advanced therefor. The likely effect will be to
force many insolvency practitioners in category D, or category C, out of
the profession and deter others, especially the young, from entering it.

[38] For those reasons I agree with the high court that the policy fails
to meet the test in Van Heerden, and is thus unconstitutional.
Ordinarily, such a finding would be the end of the dispute, but I agree
with the high court‟s approach in para 67 of its judgment:
„Not all the parties have requested that I deal with all the challenges and
some have been argued in the alternative. However, the respondents have
requested that if I conclude that the Policy is unlawful, unconstitutional and
invalid on any of the grounds, I nevertheless make findings in respect of the
other challenges. This approach conforms with Constitutional Court guidance
provided by Ngcobo J . . . in S v Jordan & others (Sex Workers Education
and Advocacy Task Force and others as Amici Curiae) 2002 (6) SA 642 (CC)
para 21. I intend to follow it.‟

Fettering the Master’s discretion
[39] The relevant parts of clause 7 of the policy are set out in para
13 above. The case of the appellants is that the Master retains his
discretion to appoint insolvency practitioners who are on the Master‟s
list because the list has been categorised into senior and junior
practitioners. The argument advanced was that before an appointment
was made the Master would consider issues such as the complexity of

the matter, and whether the next-in-line practitioner has the
infrastructure to deal with complex insolvent estates. According to the
appellants this would entail an exercise of discretion to ascertain
whether the next-in-line practitioner was suitable. In assessing the
suitability of a practitioner, we were urged to accept that the Master
would also consider issues such as race, gender, years of experience,
as well as his or her specific knowledge and expertise. The argument
continued that, in the exercise of the discretion, junior insolvency
practitioners who had no skills would benefit when they were co-
appointed to handle complex estates with senior practitioners, in terms
of clause 7.3 of the policy. The nub of the appellants‟ argument was
that the exercise of this discretion dispelled the notion that the Master
is shackled by the policy.

[40] SARIPA‟s submissions on this score were in essence, that the
policy goes beyond providing a guideline to the Master, but served to
predetermine the outcome of the exercise of the Master‟s powers, thus
binding his decision-making powers inflexibly. Their view is that the
Master would, under the policy, not retain the ability to make decisions
based on his own appreciation of all the facts before him. Because the
policy requires the Master to appoint the next-in-line practitioner, the
Master was debarred from considering each individual estate and
applying his mind, having regard to the relevant factors.

[41] CIPA‟s submissions with regards to the discretion of the Master
were essentially that except for clause 7.3, the Master was given no
discretion in terms of the policy. No allowance was made for the
aptitudes pertinent to the industry, and the wishes of the creditors and
other persons of interest were not catered for. They are joined in this
submission by NAMA who contended that by excluding creditors, from
the decision about who to appoint as provisional trustees or liquidators,
creditors were potentially prejudiced. The policy took away any
discretion the Master might have, and reduced the Master‟s function to
one of rubberstamping.

[42] Solidarity pointed out that under the policy, the Master would
disregard all other factors and allocate work on the basis of race and
gender. This, they contended, deprives the Master of exercising an
appropriate discretion and was accordingly inconsistent with section
9(2) of the Constitution.

[43] The high court agreed with the appellants‟ contention that
clause 7.3 does provide for a discretion by the Master. In terms of
clause 7.3 the Master was at large to appoint any suitable practitioner
jointly with a senior or junior practitioner appointed in alphabetical
order, having regard to the complexity of the matter and the suitability
of the next-in-line practitioner. The high court accordingly held that the
discretion of the Master was unfettered in this regard.

[44] In my view the arguments under this head proceeded from a
misconception as to the scope of the Master‟s powers of appointment.
The argument proceeded from the premise that the Master had an
unfettered discretion to appoint a provisional trustee and contended
that the policy dictated by the Minister improperly fettered that
discretion. In my view the premise is faulty. Section 18(1) confers on
the Master a power to make appointments of provisional trustees „in
accordance with policy determined by the Minister‟. The Master does
not have an unfettered discretion. That may have been the case in the
past before the amendments to the Act brought about in 2003,14 but it
is no longer the case. The Master‟s discretion is now to make
appointments in accordance with the policy. So the existence of the
policy cannot be taken as unduly fettering the Master‟s discretion,
because the Master only has a discretion to exercise in accordance
with the policy. (This is a different matter from whether the policy
imposes an unduly rigid system of, or akin, to a quota.)

14 Hartley NO v The Master 1921 AD 403 at 412; Lipschitz v Wattrus NO 1980 (1) SA
662 (T) at 671G.

[45] I accept for the purposes of argument that the provisions of s 18
do not mean that the Minister is entitled to remove all discretion from
the Master. It merely means that the Minister may circumscribe the
parameters within which the Master exercises the discretion. Viewed in
that light there is a considerable restriction imposed by clause 7.1, but
some discretion remains in terms of clause 7.3. If the Master decides
that an estate is a complex estate, or that the next in line practitioner is
unsuitable, they are accorded the power to exercise their discretion by
making an additional appointment of a senior practitioner to
supplement the appointment made in terms of clause 7.1. In doing so
the Master is not bound by the requirements of clause 7.1 and may
simply appoint a senior practitioner who the Master believes will
remedy the deficiency. The Master is left to determine what is a
complex estate and may exercise judgment in regard to the capabilities
of different insolvency practitioners. There is a limited residual
discretion left for the Master to exercise in making these appointments.
That suffices to hold that the Master‟s discretion is not improperly
fettered.

Irrationality
[46] It is desirable to deal briefly with this argument. Rationality is not
a high hurdle to surmount. What needs to be shown is that the policy
lacks a rational connection to the objectives it is directed at achieving.
The problem here is that there is no explanation in the affidavit of the
Chief Master, who also spoke for the Minister, as to the basis upon
which the policy was formulated. The explanation of the 4:3:2:1 ratio
and how it was derived was that:
„The percentages were arrived at by taking numbers which can work with
ease in practice (4:3:2:1) and give approximately the same result (70%) as
the target of 75% for non-whites used when work is allocated by the State to
lawyers.‟15

15 Vol 2, p 197. This is taken from the explanation for the policy annexed to the Chief
master‟s answering affidavit.

No reliable figures were put forward by the Chief Master to show the
number of practitioners in each category16 so that it is impossible to
say that those falling in the different categories are indeed not
receiving their fair share of the work of insolvency practitioners. It does
not suffice for the Chief Master to say that White males receive 43% of
appointments and African, Indian, coloured and Chinese males 30%,
unless we have an appreciation of the relative proportions of people
falling in these categories in the profession as a whole. If White males
constitute 65% of insolvency practitioners and African, Indian, coloured
and Chinese males only 20% then the distribution of appointments
under the current system may be demonstrating a rapid advancement
of the latter group at the expense of the former.

[47] The real problem is that in the absence of proper information
about the basis upon which the policy was formulated, and proper
information concerning the current demographics of insolvency
practitioners, one cannot say that the policy was formulated, on a
rational basis properly directed at the legitimate goal of removing the
effects of past discrimination and furthering the advancement of
persons from previously disadvantaged groups. The absence of any
explanation at all for its manifestly discriminatory impact on young
people is telling. The impression is given that the ratio is arbitrary and
cobbled together with no apparent justificatory basis.

[48] That difficulty is compounded by the many aspects of the policy
that are unexplained. For example, there is no explanation proffered by
the appellants as to what constituted a complex estate or an unsuitable
practitioner. In assessing what is a complex estate important factors
such as:
(i)
knowledge, skill and locality of the insolvency practitioners;
(ii)
value of the assets in the insolvent estate;
(iii)
nature of the insolvent business and its assets;

16 The explanation of the policy said that these figures would only emerge after the
various Masters‟ lists had been cleaned up.

(iv)
requisitions by creditors and trade unions
are to be excluded from the list.

[49] Another weakness is to be found in the Master's definition of a
senior practitioner which is a person who has received at least one
appointment per annum over the preceding five years. It matters not
whether the appointment involved winding up a few small estates
created by voluntary surrenders, or five major liquidations of
companies. This does not suggest any consideration of the skills and
expertise necessary to deal with an insolvent estate. There is no
rational basis for this distinction and it undermines the rationality of the
policy as a whole.

[50] The fact that the policy requires the Master to appoint the next-
in-line practitioner in each case is itself irrational. It fails to take into
account factors such as the nature of the individual estate, and the
industry specific knowledge, expertise or seniority of the practitioner
concerned. What this means is that absent consideration of these
factors, which are not exhaustive, the Master does so mechanically as
per the roster. The policy negates what was described by Bertelsmann
J in Ex Parte The Master of the High Court South Africa (North
Gauteng) 2011 (5) SA 311 (GNP) para 26, as the „institutional
knowledge and expertise‟ of the Master to assess the ability and
integrity of the trustees and liquidators, and decide whether they are
qualified to be appointed to a specific estate.

Costs
[51] I now turn briefly to deal with the argument relating to costs. In
the high court, CIPA, Solidarity and the appellants requested that no
order as to costs be made. SARIPA and NAMA submitted that costs
should follow the result. The high court awarded no costs against the
appellants. However, as regards the costs of this appeal there are no
reasons for costs not to be awarded against the appellants.

[52] In the result the following order is made:
1. The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the
costs of two counsel.

________________________
R S Mathopo
Judge of Appeal

Wallis JA (Mpati P, Swain and Mathopo JA concurring)
[53] I have had the pleasure of reading the judgment of Mathopo JA
with which I am in entire agreement. I write this addendum to his
judgment to deal with my concern that in formulating and publishing
the policy the Minister has disregarded a significant constraint on his
powers and thereby infringed the principle of legality or, as it was said
in the past, acted ultra vires.

[54] My starting point is that we are dealing with the legislation that
governs the liquidation of insolvent estates and the winding up of
companies and close corporations. Noticeably missing from the
submissions on behalf of the Minister and the Chief Master was any
argument addressed to that fact. A brief resumé of the law in this
regard and the purpose of this legislation is therefore called for. I start
with the statement in Walker v Syfret NO,17 where Innes J said that the
effect of a sequestration order is to bring about a concursus creditorum
which has the effect that:
„[T]he hand of the law is laid upon the estate, and at once the rights of the
general body of creditors have to be taken into consideration. No transaction
can thereafter be entered into with regard to estate matters by a single
creditor to the prejudice of the general body. The claim of each creditor must
be dealt with as it existed at the issue of the order.‟

17 Walker v Syfret NO 1911 AD 141 at 166.

Nothing can be done thereafter to affect the rights and obligations of
creditors in the insolvent estate.18 What was true in 1911 remains true
over a century later.19

[55] This passage highlights the fundamental purpose of insolvency
legislation, which is to secure the realisation of the remaining assets of
the insolvent and the distribution of the resulting amounts among
creditors in accordance with the order of preference laid down by law.
Although the Master plays a vital role in overseeing the process of
winding-up an estate,20 the process is nonetheless creditor-driven. It is
the majority of creditors in number or value of claims that have the right
to elect trustees or nominate liquidators. They have the right to take
decisions in respect of the manner in which the assets falling into the
estate, or constituting property of the corporate body, in winding-up are
to be dealt with.21  The logic of this is obvious. It is the creditors who
stand to lose as a result of the insolvency. They are the best judges of
their own interests and they are the people best situated to instruct the
trustee or liquidator how to go about the process of liquidation or
winding-up. They are the people who can judge whether it is desirable
to borrow more money in order to complete a building project in the
hope of a substantial payment, or to commence litigation with a view to
recovering amounts owing to the estate, to give but two examples. It is
after all their money that is being spent on this and their money that is
at risk.

[56] While there have been changes to our company law, with the
enactment of the new Companies Act 107 of 2008, which replaces the
old system of judicial management with the new system of business
rescue, the focus of the statutes on the interest of creditors has not

18 Ward v Barrett NO and Another 1963 (2) SA 546 (A) at 552E-G.
19 Gainsford and Others NNO v Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd 2014 (3) SA 468 (SCA)
para 1.
20 Ex parte v Master of the High Court South Africa (North Gauteng) 2011 (5) SA 311
(GNP) para 19.
21 Ibid para 28; Geduldt v The Master 2005 (4) SA 460 (C) at 466A-C.

altered. The interests of employees are now looked after but primarily
from the perspective of their role as creditors. It remains the position
that their contracts of employment are terminated by a liquidation or
sequestration order. Although the judge in the high court devoted a
portion of his judgment22 to the proposition that there is a changing role
of insolvency in society, nothing that he said detracts from the
fundamental principle that the purpose of a sequestration or liquidation
order is to bring the estate of the insolvent or the affairs, of the
corporate body, under the jurisdiction of the law to be administered
with a view to realisation to best advantage in the interests of creditors.

[57] Once it is recognised that the purpose of the Insolvency Act,
and the provisions in the Companies Act, dealing with the liquidation of
companies are designed to be driven by creditors in their own
interests, that necessarily affects the basis upon which trustees and
liquidators are to be appointed. The primary consideration must be the
interests of the creditors and serving those interests. If the appointment
of trustees and liquidators occurred speedily as contemplated by the
relevant statutes this understanding of the situation would be even
clearer, because there might not even be a need for the appointment
of a provisional trustee or liquidator. Neither statute requires such an
appointment to be made and both contemplate that the first meeting of
creditors will be speedily convened. Thus the Insolvency Act provides
in s 40(1) that on receipt of an order of the court sequestrating an
estate finally the Master shall immediately convene a first meeting of
creditors.23 Furthermore the Master has only a limited basis for
refusing to appoint the person chosen by the creditors as trustee or
liquidator.

22 Paras 23-29.
23 Section 364(1) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 is to like effect. In a members
voluntary winding-up the Master is obliged to appoint the person nominated by the
company as liquidator subject only to their not being disqualified from appointment.
See s 369(1).

[58] Provisional appointments have become more significant
because of delays in progressing from a provisional to a final
sequestration or winding-up order and because of delays in the various
Masters‟ offices. The evidence tendered by CIPA indicated that the
average delay in Gauteng is some seven months. Under the requisition
system, where creditors were able to play a significant role in the
selection of the provisional trustee or liquidator, this mattered less and
there was usually a smooth transition from provisional to final
liquidation or winding-up, with the provisional trustee or liquidator being
elected or nominated for final appointment. But the system envisaged
by the policy deliberately sets out to remove the voice of the creditors
from the process of appointment. The Chief Master said this explicitly
in his answering affidavit:
„I deny that the law provides that the Master‟s discretion has to take into
account creditors‟ directives at the provisional appointment phase.‟

[59] While that stance may be technically correct, in that there is
nothing in the relevant statutes that expressly obliges the Master to
pay heed to creditors‟ wishes when making provisional appointments, it
is beside the point. The statutes make it clear that they exist to serve
the interests of creditors. Nothing in the statutes empowers the Master
to disregard the interests of creditors and to appoint on a roster basis
persons who, in terms of the policy, the Master may regard, either
because of the complexity of the estate or because they are
unsuitable, as unqualified for such appointment. In other words it is not
open to the Master to act in a manner that disregards or is in conflict
with the interests of creditors.

[60] The Chief Master annexed to his answering affidavit a
document explaining the policy. It said that:
„To determine the persons to be appointed in a particular matter is no doubt
the most critical aspect of insolvency appointments …‟
I agree. The reason is that in view of the delays in reaching the stage
of final sequestration or winding-up and the delays in convening the

first meeting of creditors, an increasing proportion of the work of
liquidation or winding-up is undertaken by the provisional trustee or
liquidator. Under the policy they are able to do this without any
directions from the creditors and solely on the basis of the directions of
the Master.

[61] The problems with this approach are manifest. If the matter is in
the hands of creditors they will follow the maxim of horses for courses
and select as trustees or liquidators persons with knowledge of the
area of business in which the insolvency has occurred. With the roster
the next-in-line will be appointed even though what is involved is a
mine or a farm or some other business requiring specialised
knowledge, such as a chain of pharmacies or a major retailer. The
creditors must tolerate the appointment even though there is a
substantial risk that the steps the appointee takes in the course of
liquidation or winding-up are inimical to their interests. All they can do
is ask the Master to exercise the discretion under clause 7.3 of the
policy. But the sale of an asset at an under price, or at a time that is
not propitious for realising maximum value, is beyond their powers to
prevent.

[62] There can be no objection to the broad purpose of consistency,
fairness, transparency and the elimination of the impact of past
discrimination. Nor can there be any objection to the elimination of
certain undesirable features of the appointment process, ranging from
importuning to solicitation to outright dishonesty, that the Chief Master
claims were endemic under the old system. But in my view it remains a
requirement that any policy that is put in place for the appointment of
trustees and liquidators must be consistent with the purpose of our
insolvency legislation and be directed at serving the interests of
creditors. In formulating this policy their interests have quite
deliberately been disregarded at any stage prior to the first meeting of
creditors. That is what the explanatory document said and it was
echoed in the affidavit of the Chief Master.

[63] In my view that was impermissible. Given the purpose of the
legislation with which we are concerned, it seems to me that the
actions of the Minister in determining the policy under s 158 of the Act,
and the actions that the Master must undertake in terms of that policy,
must be in accordance with the interests of creditors in the liquidation
of the estate or the winding-up of the company or close corporation. As
the policy was formulated on the basis that those interests were
irrelevant, and on its face it does not recognise or serve those interests
it was in my view outside the legitimate powers vested in the Minister
and its promulgation involved a breach of the principle of legality.

[64] There is a fundamental principle that must be observed in this
regard. It was summarised in Gauteng Gambling Board24 where Navsa
JA, speaking for a unanimous court said:
„More than six decades ago this court in Van Eck NO and Van Rensburg NO
v Etna Stores 1947 (2) SA 984 (A) said the following:
“For to profess to make use of a power which has been given by statute for
one purpose only, while in fact using it for a different purpose, is to act in
fraudem legis, construing that term in the more restricted manner adopted by
the majority of this Court in the case of Dadoo Ltd v Krugersdorp Municipal
Council (1920 AD 530). . . Such a use is a mere simulatio or pretext. . . . And
I should add that, of course, if the person exercising the power avowedly
uses it for some purpose other than that for which alone it has been given, he
acts simply contra legem: where, however, he professes to use it for its
legitimate purpose, while in fact using it for another, he acts in fraudem legis.”
In present-day jurisprudence acting with an ulterior motive or purpose is
subsumed under the principle of legality.‟

[65] In my opinion it is precisely that type of breach of the principle of
legality that has occurred here. In their legitimate desire to address
past discrimination and disadvantage, the Minister and the Chief
Master have overlooked the fundamental purpose of the legislation that

24 Gauteng Gambling Board and Another v MEC for Economic Development,
Gauteng 2013 (5) SA 24 (SCA) paras 46 and 47.

governs the sequestration of estates and the winding-up of companies
and close corporations, which is to serve the interests of creditors as
conceived by the creditors themselves. The policy that has been
promulgated is not directed at that purpose and disavows the need for
the process of appointment that it governs to have regard to the views
or interests of creditors. That is an exercise of power for a purpose
other than any for which it was bestowed. It should not be difficult for
the Minister and the Chief Master to devise a policy that serves both
purposes instead of trying to serve one at the expense of the other.

[66] For that further reason as well as those set out in his judgment I
concur in the order proposed by Mathopo JA.

________________
M J D Wallis
Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES:

For appellants:
R T Williams SC

A L Platt SC

Instructed by:

The State Attorney, Cape Town

The State Attorney, Bloemfontein

For first respondent:
B Manca SC

E van Huyssteen

M Adhikari

Instructed by:

De Klerk & Van Gend Inc, Cape Town

McIntyre & Van der Post, Bloemfontein

For second respondent: M S M Brassey SC

M J Engelbrecht

Instructed by:
Tintingers Inc c/o Werksmans Attorneys,
Cape Town

Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein

For third respondent:
M J Engelbrecht

Instructed by:

Stuart Van der Merwe Inc, Arcadia

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For Fourth respondent: M J Engelbrecht

Instructed by:

Serfontein, Viljoen and Swart, Brooklyn

Claude Reid Attorneys, Bloemfontein

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

2 December 2016

STATUS

Immediate

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

Minister of Justice v The SA Restructuring & Insolvency Practitioners Association
(693/15) [2016] ZASCA 196 (2 December 2016)

MEDIA STATEMENT

The Supreme Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal against a judgment of the Western Cape
Division of the High Court, Cape Town concerning the constitutionality of a policy that seeks to
regulate the appointment of insolvency practitioners, primarily as provisional trustees and liquidators,
but also as co-trustees and co-liquidators (and other comparable positions) under various statutes.

The policy was issued by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development in terms of s 18(1) of
the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (the Act), pursuant to his powers in terms of s 158(2) of the Act and
was to come into operation on 31 March 2014.

The challenge to the policy was made in two parts, ie, Part A was for an interim order restraining its
implementation, and Part B, was to have it reviewed and set aside. In the Western Cape Division of
the High Court, Gamble J dealt with the urgent application in respect of Part A and interdicted the
appellants from implementing the policy.

The review application in Part B came before the court a quo, Katz AJ, in which the policy was
challenged on four bases. These were that it infringed the right to equality provided for in s 9(3) of the
Constitution; it unlawfully fettered the discretion of the Master; is ultra vires the Act; and was irrational.
The court a quo largely upheld the respondents’ contentions and granted the application. And acting
in terms of s 172(1)(a) of the Constitution, declared the policy inconsistent with the Constitution and
invalid.

The SCA, after reviewing clauses 6 and 7 of the policy, upheld the court a quo’s finding that the policy
is unconstitutional. The court held that clause 7.1 of the policy embodied strict allocation of
appointments in accordance with race and gender, which were arbitrary, capricious and displayed
naked preference, which is prohibited by s 9(3) of the Constitution. The court held that the policy’s
arbitrariness was not saved by clause 7.3 of the policy as it does not resolve the fact that clause 7.1
requires the Master to make an appointment in accordance with a rigid quota.

With regards to the question whether the Master’s discretion was unlawfully fettered, the SCA held
that there was a limited residual discretion left for the Master to exercise in making appointments in
terms of clause 7.3 of the policy, and so the Master’s discretion was not improperly fettered in that
regard.

On the issue of the rationality of the policy, the SCA lamented the fact that there was no explanation
by the Master for the basis upon which the policy was formulated. There was for instance no proper
explanation regarding how the ratio in the policy was determined, and no proper figures to show the
number of practitioners in each category. Thus, the court held that in the absence of proper
information about the basis upon which the policy was formulated, and proper information concerning
the current demographics of insolvency practitioners, it was not possible to say that the policy was
formulated, on a rational basis properly directed at the legitimate goal of removing the effects of past
discrimination and furthering the advancement of persons from previously disadvantaged groups.

In a concurring judgment, Wallis JA (Mpati P, Swain and Mathopo JJA concurring) held that given the
purpose of the insolvency legislation, the actions of the Minister in determining the policy under s 158
of the Act, and the actions that the Master must undertake in terms of that policy, must be in
accordance with the interests of creditors in the liquidation of the estate or the winding-up of the
company or close corporation. And that as the policy was formulated on the basis that those interests
were irrelevant, and on its face it does not recognise or serve those interests, it was outside the
legitimate powers vested in the Minister, and the promulgation thereof involved a breach of the
principle of legality.

The SCA accordingly dismissed the appeal with costs.

--- ends ---