South Africa Case Law

S.C and Another v L.M (A2023/053792)

S.C and Another v L.M (A2023/053792) [2024] ZAGPJHC 556 (12 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2023/053792

Judges

Mudau, Malindi, Wilson

The court found that the respondent provided a reasonable explanation for the lack of proof of payment for the property, given the passage of 18 years since its acquisition. The deed of transfer established that the property was registered in her name, and there was no evidence of collusion or simulated transaction intended to prejudice creditors. The insolvent's contributions to bond repayments were attributed to his common law duty of support and did not confer ownership rights. The appellants' arguments were deemed speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The respondent acquired t…

Source excerpt

• Solvent Spouse Property
• Section 21 Investigation
• Proof Of Ownership
• Title Valid Against Creditors
• Deed Of Transfer Evidence

Murray N.O. and Others v Humansdorp Co-Operative Limited (1697/2019)

Murray N.O. and Others v Humansdorp Co-Operative Limited (1697/2019) [2021] ZAECGHC 70 (26 July 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1697/2019

Judge

Stretch

Liquidators sought to set aside a payment to Humansdorp Co-operative as a disposition without value. The court held the company received value and dismissed the application.

• Disposition Without Value
• Liquidation
• Production Loan Security
• Bank Guarantees
• Cession Of Claims
• Section 26 Insolvency Act

Gainsford NO and Others v Tiffski Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (874/2010)

Gainsford NO and Others v Tiffski Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (874/2010) [2011] ZASCA 187; [2011] 4 All SA 445 (SCA); 2012 (3) SA 35 (SCA) (30 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

874/2010

Judges

Harms, Cloete, Mhlantla, Leach, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the transfer of the business and assets of Tiffindell Ski Limited to Tiffski Property Investments was void under section 34(1) of the Insolvency Act because it was not in the ordinary course of business, was not for securing payment of a debt, and no notice was published as required. The company was a trader, and the transfer occurred within six months prior to liquidation. Consequently, Tiffski did not acquire ownership, and the mortgage bonds registered in favour of the State Bank of India Limited were also void. The Bank's constitutional property right…

Source excerpt

• Void Disposition Of Assets
• Ordinary Course Of Business
• Mortgage Bonds
• Trader Definition
• Constitutional Property Rights
• Onus Of Proof

Duet and Magnum Financial Services CC (In Liquidation) v Koster (168/09)

Duet and Magnum Financial Services CC (In Liquidation) v Koster (168/09) [2010] ZASCA 34; 2010 (4) SA 499 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 154 (SCA) (29 March 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

168/09

Judges

Nugent, Heher, Van Heerden, Theron, Seriti

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statutory right given to liquidators under the Insolvency Act to seek a declaration setting aside impeachable transactions is a 'debt' for purposes of the Prescription Act. This right accrues once the necessary statutory events have occurred, typically upon the appointment of a liquidator. Prescription commences to run from that date, not from the date when the court makes the declaration. The court overruled the contrary decision in Barnard and Lynn NNO v Schoeman, confirming that the right is subject to prescription and that the claim in this case h…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Liquidator Rights
• Impeachable Transaction
• Setting Aside Dispositions
• Statutory Remedies

De Villiers NO v Delta Cables (Pty) Ltd (56/1990)

De Villiers NO v Delta Cables (Pty) Ltd (56/1990) [1991] ZASCA 115; 1992 (1) SA 9 (AD); [1992] 1 All SA 192 (A) (23 September 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

56/1990

Judges

Van Heerden, Nestadt, Goldstone, Nicholas, Van Coller

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 21(1) of the Insolvency Act vests all property of the solvent spouse in the trustee of the insolvent estate as if it were property of the insolvent. This vesting is intended to bring about a concursus creditorum and to freeze the rights and priorities of creditors as at the date of sequestration. Any subsequent disposition or registration, including the registration of a surety mortgage bond based on a power of attorney executed before sequestration, is ineffective against the trustee and does not confer a real right or preference on the creditor.…

Source excerpt

• Vesting Of Property
• Concursus Creditorum
• Surety Mortgage Bond
• Rights Of Solvent Spouse
• Insolvent Estate Priorities