South Africa Case Law

Zikhulise Auto Recoveries (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zikhulise Auto Restorers (Pty) Ltd and Others (South African Revenue Service Intervening) (36492/2018)

Zikhulise Auto Recoveries (Pty) Ltd and Others v Zikhulise Auto Restorers (Pty) Ltd and Others (South African Revenue Service Intervening) (36492/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 531 (13 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36492/2018

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The High Court dismissed a business rescue application for a company in liquidation, finding non-compliance with notice requirements, no reasonable prospect of rescue, and abuse of process concerns.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Liquidation Vs Business Rescue
• Affected Person Notification
• Abuse Of Process
• Business-rescue

Top Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kotze (38424/2016)

Top Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kotze (38424/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1268 (12 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38424/2016

Judge

Phiyega

The court dismissed a rescission application and held that the business rescue resolution remained invalidly challenged because Kotze, a creditor, was not notified as an affected person.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Affected Person Notification
• Resolution Nullity
• Creditor Rights
• Business-rescue

Papendorf and Another v Ice-Breakers 106 (PTY) LTD (M91/17)

Papendorf and Another v Ice-Breakers 106 (PTY) LTD (M91/17) [2017] ZANWHC 116 (2 November 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M91/17

Judge

GUTTA

The court held that section 131(2)(b) of the Companies Act imposes a mandatory obligation on applicants to notify each affected person of a business rescue application in the prescribed manner. The applicants failed to demonstrate compliance, as not all creditors and employees were notified, and reliance on publication and supporting affidavits did not satisfy the statutory requirements. The purpose of notification is to enable affected persons to participate in the hearing, and failure to comply prejudices their rights. The point in limine was upheld, and the application was dismissed with c…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Affected Person Notification
• Companies Act Section 131
• Mandatory Procedural Requirements

Homez Trailers And Bodies (Pty) v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (35201/2013)

Homez Trailers And Bodies (Pty) v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (35201/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 465 (27 September 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35201/2013

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court held that the applicant failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of section 129(3) of the Companies Act by not notifying the respondent, an affected person, within five business days of the business rescue resolution. This failure rendered the resolution a nullity in terms of section 129(5), and the application was dismissed on this basis. Even if the point in limine were incorrect, the court found that section 136(2)(a) only allows the business rescue practitioner to suspend the company's obligations, not those of the respondent, and does not empower the practitioner to co…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Companies Act Section 129
• Companies Act Section 136
• Credit Facility Suspension
• Affected Person Notification