INSOLVENCY LAW MRL3701 ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 01 2021 UNIQUE NO: 619641 DUE DATE:

INSOLVENCY LAW MRL3701 ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 01 2021 UNIQUE NO: DUE DATE: STUDENT NAME: GEORGE T. BVUMA STUDENT NO: 1 Question 1. What was the order that was sought by the domestic employees, the Stratfords, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice in the High Court respectively? (4) Answer: I. The order that was sought by the domestic employees, in the persons of the third appellant (Mr. Mngoma), the fourth appellant (Mr. Dlokolo) and the fifth appellant (Mr. Adonis) is twofold. Firstly, they sought that s9(4A) of the insolvency Act 24 of 1936 (referred to as the Act from hereon) be declared unconstitutional as it discriminates against domestic employees. Secondly, they sought that the order be given that failure to notify them of the sequestration proceedings amounted to a breach of their constitutional rights to fair labour practices and as well as the right to access to the courts1 II. The third respondent the Minister of Labour, seeks and order in which (1) the appeal is successful and (2) wherein it is declared that the word employees in s9(4A) of the Act includes domestic employees. III. The first and second appellant (Mr and Mrs. Statford respectively), Seeks an order in which (1) the appeal is successful, and the final sequestration order is reversed and (2) and provides that the word employees in s9(4A) of the act includes domestic employees. IV. The second respondent, the minister of Justice and Constitutional Development sought an order where (1) the appeal is dismissed and (2) provides that the word employees bear the meaning of persons employed only in a business conducted by a debtor and therefore that the domestic employees of the Stratford are excluded from the application of s9(4A) of the Act.