South Africa Case Law

Red OAK Properties (PTY) Ltd v Bokaba and Others (2021/49224)

Red OAK Properties (PTY) Ltd v Bokaba and Others (2021/49224) [2022] ZAGPJHC 990 (6 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/49224

Judge

F Bezuidenhout

The applicant is the lawful owner of the property and has complied with statutory requirements under PIE. The respondents' challenge to locus standi is without merit, as the administrator's appointment was immediate and lawful. Allegations of collusion are unfounded, with no evidence of improper conduct or mutual arrangement to mislead the court. The respondents failed to provide sufficient detail regarding their personal circumstances or steps taken to secure letters of executorship. There is no factual basis to warrant a stay of proceedings, and the prospects of rescission are slim. The res…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Locus Standi
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Collusion
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Red OAK Properties (PTY) Ltd v Murne and Others (2021/49229)

Red OAK Properties (PTY) Ltd v Murne and Others (2021/49229) [2022] ZAGPJHC 992 (6 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/49229

Judge

F Bezuidenhout

The court found that the applicant, having purchased the property at a sale in execution and being in control of the property, had sufficient locus standi under PIE to bring eviction proceedings, even though transfer had not yet been registered. The respondents' challenge to locus standi was dismissed, as previous judgments confirmed the immediate appointment of the administrator and the validity of the sale. Allegations of collusion were rejected as unfounded, with the relationship between the applicant, administrator, and Stratafin adequately explained and lawful. The respondents failed to…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Locus Standi
• Sale In Execution
• Collusion
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Bachique 746 (Pty) Ltd v Afrikelp (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM274Mar19)

Bachique 746 (Pty) Ltd v Afrikelp (Pty) Ltd and Others (LM274Mar19) [2019] ZACT 47 (28 August 2019)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

LM274Mar19

Judges

Yasmin Carrim, Andreas Wessels, Fiona Tregenna

The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved Bachique 746 (Pty) Ltd’s acquisition of the Afrikelp, Efekto and Marltons businesses, finding no substantial competition or public interest concerns.

• Merger Control
• Horizontal And Vertical Overlap
• Information Exchange
• Collusion Theory
• Public Interest Employment
• Merger-control

Hohne v Hohne and Another (603/2017)

Hohne v Hohne and Another (603/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 49 (8 June 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

603/2017

Judge

L Vuma

Provisional sequestration application dismissed after the court found the alleged loan was a donation and the case was a collusive friendly sequestration.

• Provisional Sequestration
• Friendly Sequestration
• Collusion
• Advantage To Creditors
• Onus Of Proof
• Donation Vs Loan

Competition Commission v BLG Leads Logistics of South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C0026May15)

Competition Commission v BLG Leads Logistics of South Africa (Pty) Ltd (C0026May15) [2015] ZACT 131; [2015] 2 CPLR 515 (CT) (31 August 2015)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

C0026May15

Judges

A Wessels, A Roskam, A Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal confirmed a consent agreement in which BLG admitted a section 4(1)(b)(ii) Competition Act contravention and agreed to pay a penalty and amend its joint venture terms.

• Market Division
• Collusion
• Administrative Penalty
• Joint Venture Agreement
• Section 4 Competition Act
• Competition-law

Griekwaland-Wes Korporatief Ltd v Trio Trade Gauteng (Pty) Ltd (019141)

Griekwaland-Wes Korporatief Ltd v Trio Trade Gauteng (Pty) Ltd (019141) [2014] ZACT 67 (4 November 2014)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

019141

Judges

Norman Manoim, Medi Mokuena, Andiswa Ndoni

The Competition Tribunal unconditionally approved GWK’s acquisition of 51% of Trio Trade Gauteng after finding no substantial competition or public interest concerns.

• Merger Control
• Horizontal Overlap
• Collusion In Agricultural Markets
• Public Interest
• Market Share Analysis
• Merger-control

De Beer v Coverdale and Another (45751/2009, 47257/2009, 34375/2009, 32075/2009, 4983/2009)

De Beer v Coverdale and Another (45751/2009, 47257/2009, 34375/2009, 32075/2009, 4983/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 9 (18 February 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45751/2009

Judge

T M Makgoka

Composite judgment refusing several unopposed sequestration applications for lack of proof, full disclosure, and signs of collusion in friendly sequestration matters.

• Compulsory Sequestration
• Friendly Sequestration
• Advantage To Creditors
• Abuse Of Process
• Act Of Insolvency
• Friendly-sequestration

Econocom 686 CC v Vivienne Edmond Keswell Family Trust and Others (12723/09)

Econocom 686 CC v Vivienne Edmond Keswell Family Trust and Others (12723/09) [2009] ZAKZDHC 62 (5 November 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

12723/09

Judge

Marais

The court dismissed an urgent friendly sequestration application, finding it lacked detail, appeared collusive, and showed signs of abuse of process.

• Sequestration
• Friendly Sequestration
• Abuse Of Process
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Collusion
• Creditor Protection

First Pharmacy CC v Shoprite and Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another (17682/2008)

First Pharmacy CC v Shoprite and Checkers (Pty) Ltd and Another (17682/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 93 (11 December 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17682/2008

Judge

Moosa

The High Court granted an interim interdict protecting a pharmacy’s exclusive lease-based right to operate in a shopping centre pending return date.

• Exclusive Use Clause
• Lease Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Collusion
• Irreparable Harm
• Interim-interdict

Leonard and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (84/CR/AUG07)

Leonard and Others v Nedbank Limited and Others (84/CR/AUG07) [2008] ZACT 37 (21 May 2008)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

84/CR/AUG07

Judges

N Manoim, D Lewis, T Orleyn

The Tribunal dismissed a stay application, held that merger and collusion complaints were not properly referred, and found the tying complaint prescribed.

• Section 65 Referral
• Tying And Bundling
• Merger Notification
• Collusion
• Prescription
• Costs Award