South Africa Case Law

De Wet and Another in re Olive Trading Company (Pty) Ltd v Kuyanda Commodities 34 CC t/a Bafana Petroleum (2024/024546)

De Wet and Another in re Olive Trading Company (Pty) Ltd v Kuyanda Commodities 34 CC t/a Bafana Petroleum (2024/024546) [2025] ZAGPPHC 390 (23 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/024546

Judge

Neukircher

The Intervening Applicants, as minority members and creditors of Kuyanda, have demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the liquidation proceedings and are entitled to intervene. The business rescue applications pending in the Mpumalanga High Court have been properly commenced and, in terms of section 131(6) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, automatically suspend the liquidation application until adjudication of the business rescue proceedings. The facts and legal issues in this matter are intertwined with multiple related applications already pending in Mpumalanga, and judicial effic…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Joinder Of Parties
• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Oppressive Conduct

Willow Acres Homeowners Association NPC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (53875/13)

Willow Acres Homeowners Association NPC v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (53875/13) [2025] ZAGPPHC 225 (7 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53875/13

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court granted a mandamus compelling Tshwane to pursue a demolition application to finality, and awarded Willow Acres costs on scale B.

• Mandamus
• Enforcement Of Statutory Duties
• Illegal Building
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Costs Award
• Municipal-enforcement

ABSA Bank Limited v Marotex (Pty) Ltd (In Business Rescue) and Others (31562/2018)

ABSA Bank Limited v Marotex (Pty) Ltd (In Business Rescue) and Others (31562/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 33 (20 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31562/2018

Judge

Potterill

The High Court held that Marotex’s appeal had lapsed, so Teffo J’s orders remained in force and the respondents had to comply with prior filing orders.

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Res Judicata
• Leave To Appeal
• Winding Up Order
• Appeal-procedure
• Business-rescue

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd v Kalagadi Manganese (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/10228)

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Ltd v Kalagadi Manganese (Pty) Ltd and Others (2020/10228) [2024] ZAGPJHC 409 (20 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/10228

Judge

Spilg

The court found that none of the parties' preliminary points had reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The IDC's authority to launch and oppose proceedings was sufficiently established, and the jurisdictional challenges raised by AfDB and other lenders did not oust the court's jurisdiction in the circumstances. The compulsory arbitration and dispute resolution provisions did not preclude the court from adjudicating the matter, and the restructuring sought by Kalagadi did not require expert determination at this stage. The court emphasised the need for expedition in business rescue matter…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Jurisdictional Challenge
• Authority Of Board
• Compulsory Arbitration
• Creditor Rights

Investec Bank Limited v MFBK Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (D11428/2021)

Investec Bank Limited v MFBK Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (D11428/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 15 (25 April 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D11428/2021

Judge

Sipunzi AJ

The court found that all requirements for lis alibi pendens were satisfied: the same parties, cause of action, and subject matter were involved in both the present application and the pending Gauteng proceedings. Allowing the application to proceed would duplicate litigation and risk inconsistent outcomes, particularly for the business rescue practitioner who is central to both disputes. The applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify proceeding in parallel, and no evidence supported its claim that the Gauteng proceedings were brought for ulterior motives. The court upheld the p…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Termination Of Business Rescue
• Affected Persons Rights
• Costs Award

Knoop N.O. and Another v Islandsite Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd and Others (1410/2023)

Knoop N.O. and Another v Islandsite Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd and Others (1410/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 420 (26 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1410/2023

Judge

Cronjé

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a business-rescue dispute over interim relief concerning authority to litigate, prima facie rights, irreparable harm, and appealability.

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Locus Standi
• Interim Interdict
• Irreparable Harm
• Balance Of Convenience
• Appealability Of Interim Orders

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Majestic Silver Trading 275 (Pty) Ltd and Others (B445/2023)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Majestic Silver Trading 275 (Pty) Ltd and Others (B445/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1791 (11 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B445/2023

Judge

Davis

The court confirmed a tax preservation order against the trust and Mr Shabangu, discharged it against Mrs Shabangu, and authorized asset realization to secure tax debts.

• Tax Preservation Order
• Tax Debt Recovery
• Section 163 Tax Administration Act
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Dissipation Of Assets
• Tax-preservation-order

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022)

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1023 (11 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

05174/2022

Judge

Wepener

The court found that at the time Beryl Partners initiated business rescue proceedings for Beryl Coal, multiple liquidation applications were pending, including those by SG Coal, D&R, and Jabula. This rendered the business rescue proceedings invalid under section 129(2) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, the business rescue application failed to comply with section 131(6) due to improper service and lack of notification to SARS, a major creditor. The return of service could not be amended or condoned without the Sheriff's support, and the evidence did not justify such relief. Inceku Mining's c…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Service Of Process
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act Section 129
• Consolidation Of Applications

Business Partners Limited v Montache Villas (Pty) Ltd (62454/2021)

Business Partners Limited v Montache Villas (Pty) Ltd (62454/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1147 (6 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62454/2021

Judge

A Vorster

The respondent failed to repay the loan and royalties due to the applicant, and statutory demand was served and not met. The respondent is commercially insolvent, unable to pay its debts as they fall due, and has no cash or expendable capital to satisfy the applicant's claims. The respondent's opposition based on intended business rescue proceedings is legally untenable, as such proceedings had not commenced and no cogent evidence was provided of a reasonable prospect of rescue. The respondent's assertion of factual solvency is irrelevant where commercial insolvency is established. The applic…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Commercial Insolvency
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Creditor Entitlement
• Court Discretion In Liquidation

Southern Sky Hotel and Leisure (Pty) Ltd and Others v Southern Sky Food Enterprises (Pty) Ltd (617/2021)

Southern Sky Hotel and Leisure (Pty) Ltd and Others v Southern Sky Food Enterprises (Pty) Ltd (617/2021) [2022] ZASCA 134; 2023 (4) SA 99 (SCA) (13 October 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

617/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Musi, Basson, Masipa

Section 131(6) of the Companies Act suspends the process of liquidation, but does not invalidate agreements concluded by liquidators, provided that such agreements are subject to the outcome of any pending business rescue application. Clause 24 of the sale agreement made the transaction conditional upon the dismissal of the business rescue application, ensuring compliance with the statutory suspension. There is no textual, contextual, or purposive basis in s 131(6) to render such agreements void. The respondent’s application to declare the agreement invalid was therefore unfounded, and the hi…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Suspension
• Sale Of Company Assets
• Statutory Interpretation
• Abuse Of Process