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
Eckhoff N.O. and Another v Hartshorne and Another (13640/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 68 (29 April 2022)
Joint liquidators sought to set aside a payment to creditors under sections 26, 29, 30 and 31 of the Insolvency Act, but the High Court dismissed the application.
De Jongh Ontwikkelings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kilotech Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (63945/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 190; 2021 (4) SA 492 (GP) (25 March 2021)
The High Court held that DJO’s disposal of a R1.9 million claim to Kilotech was impeachable under the Insolvency Act and ordered repayment with interest.
Jackson v Louw N.O and Another (CA&R 149/17) [2018] ZAECGHC 141; [2019] 2 All SA 145 (ECG) (13 December 2018)
The court held that the agreements regarding the livestock and equipment constituted voidable preferences under section 29 of the Insolvency Act. The Trust was the owner of the heifers and younger animals, and the equipment, at the time of disposition. The surrender of these assets to the appellant was not in the ordinary course of business, but rather arose from the Trust's insolvency and inability to meet its obligations. The evidence did not support a finding of collusion or fraudulent intent under section 31. The trial court's order was set aside and replaced with an order setting aside o…
Source excerpt
Button N.O and Others v Akbur and Others (14600/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 84 (23 September 2015)
The court held that payments by an insolvent close corporation to an insider and related party were voidable preferences and ordered repayment with interest.
Limbada and Another v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd v Limbada and Others (50016/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 652 (8 September 2015)
The court found that the applicants were represented at the hearing and that the judgment was not granted in their absence, thus Rule 31(2)(b) and Rule 42(1)(a) do not apply. The applicants failed to show good cause for rescission of the entire judgment, as their explanation for default was insufficient and they admitted receiving the payments. However, the court accepted that the applicants had repaid R1 million each, which was not disclosed in the liquidators' affidavits and was undisputed. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant partial rescission of the judgment to the ex…
Source excerpt
Theba and Others, Bhana and Others; Essay and Others; Bhana and Others v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (73173/2014; 73174/2014; 73175/2014, 73763/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1000 (8 September 2015)
The High Court dismissed rescission applications arising from repayments made by Aurora while insolvent, finding no valid default explanation and no basis to disturb judgment.
Theba and Others; Bhana and Others; Essay and Others; Bhana and Others v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (73173/2014; 73174/2014; 73175/2014; 73763/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 695 (7 September 2015)
Rescission applications were dismissed after the court found no adequate default explanation and no real basis to dispute Aurora’s insolvency.
Louw NO and Another v Sobabini CC and Others (3532/13) [2015] ZAECGHC 153 (28 January 2015)
The High Court set aside livestock and equipment transfers from an insolvent trust to a creditor as voidable dispositions, undue preferences and collusive dealings.
Harris N.O. and Others v Muhanga Mines (Pty) Ltd (47245/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 363 (12 June 2014)
The High Court refused leave to amend a notice of motion in an insolvency dispute, finding the proposed amendment introduced a new cause of action and would prejudice the respondent.
Beeston v Matsepe and Others (5700/2007) [2008] ZAFSHC 21 (24 April 2008)
The court partially granted a spouse’s application to release assets from an insolvent estate, accepting proof for some property but not for others.
Explore more
