South Africa Case Law

Seaview Developments CC v Cornuti Savoy CC (50247/2021)

Seaview Developments CC v Cornuti Savoy CC (50247/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 649 (3 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

50247/2021

Judge

WJ Du Plessis

The court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of indebtedness for arrear rental and municipal charges, and that the statutory demand was properly served for debts due and payable. The respondent failed to provide convincing evidence of solvency or to dispute the debt on bona fide and reasonable grounds. The business rescue application was not 'made' as required by s 131(6) of the Companies Act, because notice was not given to all affected persons, specifically employees, who are presumed to be employees under the Labour Relations Act regardless of contract form. Theref…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Winding Up
• Business Rescue
• Statutory Demand
• Insolvency Presumption
• Affected Persons Notice

Cape 26 (PTY) Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (2021/31083)

Cape 26 (PTY) Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (2021/31083) [2022] ZAGPJHC 883 (28 July 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/31083

Judge

Gilbert

The High Court dismissed Cape 26’s application to extend time to publish a business rescue plan, finding Tayob had not shown locus standi and awarding costs against him personally.

• Business Rescue
• Locus Standi
• Board Resolution Validity
• Affected Persons Notice
• Postponement
• Costs Personal Liability

Lanarco Home Owners Association v Prospect SA Investments 42 (Proprietary) Limited (In Business Rescue) and Others (9381/14)

Lanarco Home Owners Association v Prospect SA Investments 42 (Proprietary) Limited (In Business Rescue) and Others (9381/14) [2014] ZAKZDHC 44 (29 October 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

9381/14

Judge

Koen

The court held that the interim interdict was granted with the full knowledge and non-opposition of the first respondent, and thus was not granted ex parte but by default. The application for reconsideration was dismissed because the respondent failed to raise any grounds that would result in injustice. The court found that it had jurisdiction to grant both the interdict and the leave required under section 133(1)(b) of the Companies Act, rejecting the respondent's argument that only the North Gauteng High Court could grant such leave. The court agreed with previous judgments declining to fol…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Interim Interdict
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Affected Persons Notice
• Company Law Proceedings

application of Van den Steen NO and Another (3624/2013), Ex parte

application of Van den Steen NO and Another (3624/2013), Ex parte [2013] ZAGPJHC 33; 2014 (6) SA 29 (GJ) (27 February 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

3624/2013

Judge

G Rautenbach

The court held that although the applicants did not strictly comply with the prescribed manner of delivering section 129 notices to all affected persons, including the note holders, substantial compliance was achieved. The note holders became aware of the business rescue proceedings within the prescribed time through alternative means, and no prejudice resulted. Section 6(9) of the Companies Act permits substantial compliance where the object of the notice provisions is met and the probability of receipt is not materially reduced. The intervening parties had a material interest and were allow…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Substantial Compliance
• Affected Persons Notice