South Africa Case Law

Jacobus v Tracy N.O. and Others (10387/2022)

Jacobus v Tracy N.O. and Others (10387/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1118 (3 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

10387/2022

Judge

A Friedman

The court held that condonation for the late filing of the application should be granted, as the delay was minimal, explained, and caused no prejudice. The application to set aside the Master’s ruling was dismissed except in relation to the provision of supporting documentation. The court found that the liquidators failed to provide adequate supporting documents for certain expenses listed in the liquidation and distribution account, particularly those in annexure FA9 and the payment for 'compliance certificates.' The Master’s ruling was set aside to the extent that the account was incomplete…

Source excerpt

• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Personal Liability Of Liquidators
• Condonation
• Remuneration Of Liquidators
• Supporting Documentation
• Close Corporations

Reddy v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (20096/2014)

Reddy v Absa Bank Ltd and Others (20096/2014) [2015] ZASCA 83 (28 May 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20096/2014

Judges

Lewis, Ponnan, Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Mayat

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the reinstatement of Missouri Trading CC under s 82(4) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 automatically and retrospectively validated all corporate activities undertaken during the period of deregistration, including the winding up process and the appointment of liquidators. The court relied on its previous decision in Newlands Surgical Clinic v Peninsula Eye Clinic, which established that reinstatement operates retrospectively not only to revest property but also to validate corporate actions. The appellant's application was therefore without merit, and the…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Deregistration And Reinstatement
• Retrospective Validation
• Winding Up
• Close Corporations

Welman v Marcelle Props 193 CC and Another (33958/2011)

Welman v Marcelle Props 193 CC and Another (33958/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 32 (24 February 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

33958/2011

Judge

M Tsoka

The court dismissed an application to place a close corporation under business rescue, finding the applicant had not shown concrete facts supporting a reasonable prospect of rescue.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Close Corporations
• Liquidation Vs Business Rescue
• Creditor Rights
• Business-rescue

Northview Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd v Revelas Properties Johannesburg CC and Another (275/09)

Northview Shopping Centre (Pty) Ltd v Revelas Properties Johannesburg CC and Another (275/09) [2010] ZASCA 16; 2010 (3) SA 630 (SCA) ; [2010] 3 All SA 422 (SCA) (18 March 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

275/09

Judges

Lewis, Heher, Mlambo, Malan, Theron

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of written authority given by the member of a close corporation to an agent who is not a member, a contract for the sale of land signed by such an agent is invalid under s 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The court distinguished between functionaries (members of close corporations or company directors) who may bind the entity without written authority, and agents who require express written authorization. The omission of an equivalent provision to s 69 of the Companies Act in the Close Corporations Act was found to be deliberate, and pa…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Written Authority
• Agency
• Close Corporations
• Specific Performance

Vena and Another v Vena and Others (2461/2008)

Vena and Another v Vena and Others (2461/2008) [2009] ZAECPEHC 26; 2010 (2) SA 248 (ECP) (28 May 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2461/2008

Judge

Jones

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency as required by rule 6(12)(b), with vague and insubstantial allegations that did not justify the truncated procedure. While the Supreme Court of Appeal has indicated that lack of urgency should generally result in striking the matter off the roll, the trial court retains discretion to dismiss an application in cases of abuse of process. On the merits, the agreement did not specify the method of payment, and commercial practice as well as the conduct of both parties indicated that payment by conditional guarantee was contemplated. T…

Source excerpt

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Payment In Commercial Contracts
• Absolution From Instance
• Leave To Appeal
• Close Corporations