Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Magano and Others v Kaps and Others (UM92/2020) [2024] ZANWHC 80 (19 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 42(1)(a) rescission application, finding no proof that attorneys lacked mandate and holding the delay of over three years unjustified.
Naude N.O. and Another v Louis Pasteur Medical Investments Ltd and Others (51476/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 800 (24 October 2022)
The court granted condonation, found LPMI’s attorneys lacked authority, removed Mr Naidoo as co-business rescue practitioner, and dismissed the counter-application.
Cape 26 (PTY) Limited v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and Others (2021/31083) [2022] ZAGPJHC 883 (28 July 2022)
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.
Minister of Higher Education, Science and Technology v Construction Education and Training Authority and Others (JA27/2020) [2021] ZALAC 39; [2022] 1 BLLR 72 (LAC); (2022) 43 ILJ 374 (LAC) (20 October 2021)
The Labour Appeal Court held that the resolution appointing Werkmans Attorneys to act for the first respondent was invalid because it failed to secure the required majority and impermissibly included proxy votes, which are expressly prohibited by the first respondent's Constitution. The second respondent, as proposer, did not vote, and the withdrawal of support by four directors further undermined the resolution's validity. Without a valid resolution, the application lacked proper authorisation and could not be sustained. The Court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a just and equit…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited and Another v Ikageng Construction (Pty) Ltd (61235/2014, 61236/2014 , 61237/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 684 (5 September 2014)
The court found the matter urgent, holding that the applicant did not create its own urgency. The business rescue practitioner failed to comply with statutory duties, including the proper adoption of the board resolution and the notice and publication requirements for appointment. The board resolution was invalid as it was not adopted by a majority of directors. The failure to publish the business rescue plan within the prescribed period further rendered the proceedings a nullity. The companies were commercially insolvent and not operational, justifying final liquidation. The court set aside…
Source excerpt
Explore more
