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
J van Dam N.O and Others v Cannabat Manufacturers International (2883/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 192 (27 June 2025)
Winding-up application dismissed where the debt was bona fide disputed, the statutory demand was not properly served, and the process was found abusive.
Nexnovo Africa (Pty) Ltd v Pro-Logistics Forwarding (Pty) Ltd (2024/121278) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1236 (28 November 2024)
The applicant established a bona fide dispute regarding its indebtedness to the respondent, as its damages claim plausibly exceeds the respondent's claim for unpaid services. The respondent failed to produce a signed contract indemnifying it from liability, and the applicant's claim is supported by evidence of theft and replacement costs. The urgency of the application is justified by the triggering of the section 345 process and the imminent risk of irreparable harm to the applicant's business, credit facilities, and future prospects. The court found that opposing the liquidation application…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v DC Trustees (Reasons) (4221/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 337 (28 October 2024)
The High Court granted Nedbank’s application to place DC Trustees under final liquidation, finding the debt undisputed on bona fide grounds and the company commercially insolvent.
BTW and Associates (Pty) Ltd v Maragela Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (9193/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 222 (19 March 2024)
The applicant established that it is a creditor of the respondent for an amount exceeding R100, that the debt is due and payable, and that the respondent failed to pay after proper service of a section 345 notice. The respondent's defences were inconsistent, contradictory, and unsupported by evidence. The cap argument failed to account for VAT, leaving a substantial amount unpaid. The prescription defence was defeated by the respondent's own admissions, which interrupted prescription. The respondent did not make full disclosure of its financial position, justifying a negative inference regard…
Source excerpt
Dineam Trade (Pty) Ltd v Sumali Investments 101 (Pty) Ltd (2022/055447) [2024] ZAGPJHC 17 (12 January 2024)
The court found that the respondent raised a bona fide and reasonable dispute regarding the alleged indebtedness to the applicant, supported by evidence of rental occupation and the deposit of funds into its attorneys' trust account. The applicant failed to establish that the respondent was unable to pay its debts as contemplated by section 345(1) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, the legal principle that ownership is not a requirement for a valid sale contract undermined the applicant's claim of fraud and inability to transfer. The court held that liquidation should not be granted on the ap…
Source excerpt
SB Guarantee Company (Pty) Ltd v TS Tshantsha Attorneys (Pty) Ltd (04586/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 784 (10 July 2023)
The High Court refused condonation for a late opposing affidavit and granted a provisional winding-up order against the respondent.
Payapp (Pty) Ltd and Another v Polanocol (Pty) Ltd and Others (Hulett and Others Intervening) (6482/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 141 (8 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application to wind up Polanocol, finding the alleged debts bona fide disputed and the wider community in the company should not be displaced.
Investec Bank Limited v Kulu Sand Distributors and Plant Hire CC (695/2021) [2023] ZAMPMHC 17 (16 May 2023)
Provisional winding-up application dismissed because the respondent raised a bona fide dispute about the debt, interest rate, and alleged overcharging.
SA Securities Solutions and Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Modular Communications SA (Pty) Ltd (2796/2021) [2022] ZAECQBHC 18 (26 July 2022)
The High Court dismissed a provisional winding-up application after finding the alleged debt was bona fide disputed on reasonable grounds.
Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena N.O and Another (3797/2022) [2022] ZALMPPHC 43; [2022] 4 All SA 274 (LP) (18 July 2022)
The court found that the evidence from the section 417 and 418 enquiry, relied upon by the applicants, is inadmissible against the Trust as it constitutes hearsay and was not confirmed by the witnesses in these proceedings. The applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for admission of hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as the evidence was incomplete, untested, and prejudicial to the respondents. The court further held that the applicants did not establish their locus standi as creditors, as the alleged indebtedness of the Trust is bona fide dispu…
Source excerpt
Explore more
