South Africa Case Law

Singh v Tippertech Proprietary Limited and Another (7987/2024P)

Singh v Tippertech Proprietary Limited and Another (7987/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 5 (21 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7987/2024P

Judge

Mossop J

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect for rescuing the respondent company as required by section 131(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The applicant's case was undermined by material non-disclosures and misrepresentations regarding the surrender of assets and the existence of new contracts. The only financial particulars provided were vague and unsupported by documentation. The applicant did not comply with procedural requirements for notice to affected persons and failed to deliver a replying affidavit to rebut serious allegations of dishonesty. The court acc…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 131
• Provisional Liquidation
• Affected Person Status

Sibanda and Another v Transhunt (PTY) Ltd and Others (2022/13229)

Sibanda and Another v Transhunt (PTY) Ltd and Others (2022/13229) [2022] ZAGPJHC 488 (29 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/13229

Judge

Manoim

The High Court dismissed an urgent application to place Transhunt in business rescue, finding no reasonable prospect of rescue and no better result than liquidation.

• Business Rescue
• Voluntary Winding Up
• Affected Person Status
• Conflict Of Interest
• Creditor Vs Shareholder Rights
• Business-rescue

QBX Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd v Mafuri Turnkey Accelerated Construction (25077/2016)

QBX Consulting Services (Pty) Ltd v Mafuri Turnkey Accelerated Construction (25077/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 535 (16 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25077/2016

Judge

Mokose AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to establish locus standi as an affected person under section 128(1)(a) of the Companies Act, as the existence of a binding agreement making the applicant a creditor was not proven. The respondent's version of the facts was not so far-fetched or untenable as to be rejected on the papers. Furthermore, the applicant did not provide concrete and objectively ascertainable details to demonstrate that the respondent was financially distressed or that there was a reasonable prospect of rescuing the company. The alternative claim for liquidation also failed,…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Affected Person Status
• Commercial Insolvency
• Liquidation Application

Loots v Nongoma Medical Centre CC and Another (5639/2016)

Loots v Nongoma Medical Centre CC and Another (5639/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 76 (24 June 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5639/2016

Judge

N P Boqwana

The High Court dismissed a business rescue application, finding it was not brought bona fide and appeared aimed at delaying liquidation and rental collection.

• Business Rescue
• Affected Person Status
• Abuse Of Process
• Creditor Locus Standi
• Reasonable Prospect
• Costs On Attorney And Client Scale

Richter v Bloempro CC and Others (69531/2012)

Richter v Bloempro CC and Others (69531/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 120; 2014 (6) SA 38 (GP) (14 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69531/2012

Judge

BAM

The court held that while the applicant may technically remain an affected person under the Companies Act due to the suspension, not termination, of his employment contract, the business rescue application cannot succeed after a final liquidation order has been granted. The legislative intent, as interpreted from the Companies Act, is that business rescue is available only before a final liquidation order. Once final liquidation is ordered, the company loses its legal standing and cannot be placed under business rescue. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the busines…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Final Liquidation Order
• Affected Person Status
• Jurisdiction
• Conversion Of Proceedings