South Africa Case Law

Georgiou N.O and Another v Poole and Another (A143/2024 ; 2566/2021)

Georgiou N.O and Another v Poole and Another (A143/2024 ; 2566/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 738 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A143/2024 ; 2566/2021

Judges

M J Teffo, M Motha, M M D Lenyai

The court held that the Trust, as heir and beneficiary, does not acquire ownership of the deceased's assets upon death but only a contingent personal right against the executor, enforceable after confirmation of the liquidation and distribution account. This right is financial, not legal, and does not confer locus standi to intervene in sequestration proceedings. The trustees were inquorate and failed to appoint a third trustee as required by the Trust Deed, further undermining their standing. The court found no merit in the argument that Mr Poole lacked locus standi due to the alleged cessio…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Intervention Application
• Sequestration
• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Business Rescue Plan

Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust and Another; Poole v Saffy N.O (2566/2021)

Trustees of the N Georgiou Trust and Another; Poole v Saffy N.O (2566/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 282 (18 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2566/2021

Judge

HF Jacobs

The High Court refused leave to appeal against dismissal of a trust’s intervention and postponement applications in sequestration proceedings, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Intervention In Sequestration
• Business Rescue Plan
• Standing Of Trustees
• Interpretation Of Trust Deed
• Leave-to-appeal

Kransfontein Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v Corlink Twenty Five (Pty) Ltd and Others (624/2016)

Kransfontein Beleggings (Pty) Ltd v Corlink Twenty Five (Pty) Ltd and Others (624/2016) [2017] ZASCA 131 (29 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

624/2016

Judges

Lewis, Bosielo, Saldulker, Mokgohloa, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the non-joinder of creditors with a direct and substantial interest in the business rescue plan was fatal to the relief sought by the applicant. The relief, even as amended, would affect the rights of all concurrent creditors by reducing the dividend payable to them. The court further held that it has no power to partially set aside and amend an adopted business rescue plan to alter its operation in relation to one or more creditors; such changes must be considered and voted on by all creditors in accordance with the Companies Act. The applicant failed to…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Non Joinder
• Secured Creditor Rights
• Companies Act
• Creditors Meeting
• Business Rescue Plan

Senwes Limited v Zellenhen Boerdery CC and Others; Zellehen Boerdery CC v Senwes Ltd (50799/2015, 50486/2015)

Senwes Limited v Zellenhen Boerdery CC and Others; Zellehen Boerdery CC v Senwes Ltd (50799/2015, 50486/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 373 (31 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50799/2015, 50486/2015

Judge

DS Molefe

The court held that Senwes, a secured creditor, voted bona fide against a business rescue plan that risked its security, and ordered liquidation.

• Business Rescue
• Secured Creditor Rights
• Creditor Voting
• Liquidation
• Companies Act
• Business Rescue Plan