Khumalo Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Step Up Engineering (Pty) Ltd (075138-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 182 (27 February 2025)

Khumalo Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Step Up Engineering (Pty) Ltd (075138-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 182 (27 February 2025)

The applicant established a valid claim for liquidation by proving the respondent's breach of the settlement agreement and the existence of an unpaid debt exceeding R100.00. The respondent failed to provide audited financial statements to substantiate its claim of solvency and did not dispute the debt on bona fide reasonable grounds. The respondent's defenses regarding the order of court and the requirement to approach the City of Tshwane were found to be misconstrued, as the settlement agreement permitted additional remedies. The respondent admitted to owing R1,700,000.00, and the court was satisfied that the requirements of section 345 were met, deeming the respondent unable to pay its...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 182
Parties
Applicant: Khumalo Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Step Up Engineering (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Case Number
075138-2023
Procedural Posture
Liquidation Application / Provisional Liquidation Order
Outcome
Provisional liquidation order granted against the respondent.
Judges
Lenyai
Legal Topics
Company Liquidation, Creditor Claim, Settlement Agreement, Section 345 Notice, Breach of Contract
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Company Liquidation Creditor Claim Settlement Agreement Section 345 Notice Breach of Contract

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khumalo Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Step Up Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Liquidation Application / Provisional Liquidation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is unable to pay its debts as contemplated by section 345 of the Companies Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a valid claim for liquidation based on breach of the settlement agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defenses constitute bona fide disputes on reasonable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established a valid claim for liquidation by proving the respondent's breach of the settlement agreement and the existence of an unpaid debt exceeding R100.00. The respondent failed to provide audited financial statements to substantiate its claim of solvency and did not dispute the debt on bona fide reasonable grounds. The respondent's defenses regarding the order of court and the requirement to approach the City of Tshwane were found to be misconstrued, as the settlement agreement permitted additional remedies. The respondent admitted to owing R1,700,000.00, and the court was satisfied that the requirements of section 345 were met, deeming the respondent unable to pay its...

Court Disposition

Provisional liquidation order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is placed under provisional liquidation.
  • Any party wishing to avoid a final liquidation order must advance reasons on or before 26 August 2025.