South Africa Case Law

Alleluia Ministries International NPC v Kings Vision Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/077307)

Alleluia Ministries International NPC v Kings Vision Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/077307) [2025] ZAGPJHC 68 (31 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/077307

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court dismissed an urgent application to prevent a claim being treated as abandoned under section 359 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973.

• Companies Act 1973 Section 359
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Urgent Application
• Creditor Claims
• Condonation Of Noncompliance
• Urgency

Madimabe v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Others (11144/2013)

Madimabe v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Others (11144/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 96 (1 April 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11144/2013

Judge

M. Mbongwe

The court found that the applicant's attorney was the appropriate person to depose to the founding affidavit, given her direct involvement in the relevant communications and efforts to identify the liquidators. The applicant's conduct was reasonable and persistent, and the delay in notification was satisfactorily explained. There was no evidence of prejudice to the liquidation process or interested parties. The court exercised its discretion under Section 359(2)(b) of the Companies Act 1973 to grant the applicant leave to continue her claim against the company in liquidation. The opposition b…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 1973 Section 359
• Liquidation Procedure
• Late Notification
• Leave To Continue Proceedings

Eskom Holdings Limited v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Another (16364/2013)

Eskom Holdings Limited v Transdeco GTMH (Pty) Ltd and Another (16364/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 89 (7 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

16364/2013

Judge

M Mbongwe

The court held that the applicant had not abandoned its claim against the first respondent, as its continued pursuit of the claim in arbitration and the liquidators' involvement indicated ongoing intent. The statutory framework of section 359(2)(b) provides a remedy for parties who failed to give timeous notice, and the liquidators cannot waive the defence under section 359(2)(a). The right to bring this application is not a debt and is not subject to prescription. The first respondent's opposition was found to be vexatious, given its knowledge of the applicant's claim and its flawed reliance…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act 1973 Section 359
• Liquidation Procedure
• Arbitration Pending Liquidation
• Waiver Of Defence
• Prescription Act Application