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
Pienaar and Another v Raadt and Others (2277/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 64 (25 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application, finding the applicants had not proved non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt and ordered costs against them.
First Rand Bank Ltd and Another v Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another (4437/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 162 (5 June 2025)
The court placed Azrapart under business rescue after finding it financially distressed and unconvinced by claims of an imminent R2.6 billion Redcore funding injection.
Graham N.O and Others v Sailing Puppy (Pty) Ltd and Another (037099/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 558 (20 May 2025)
The High Court ordered Sailing Puppy (Pty) Ltd to convene a shareholders’ meeting after finding the Trust was the sole shareholder and the director’s refusal unjustified.
Msimbithi Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v African Legend Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (628/2023) [2025] ZASCA 61 (14 May 2025)
The SCA upheld a capital-raising share issue, set aside the dismissal of a delinquency counter-application, and declared Ramano delinquent for seven years.
Weir v Wiehahn Formwork Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others (19494/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 74; [2025] 2 All SA 938 (WCC); 2025 (4) SA 637 (WCC) (4 March 2025)
The court held that section 71(1) and (2) of the Companies Act does not require shareholders to provide reasons for the intended removal of a director in advance of the shareholders' meeting. The statutory text distinguishes between removal by shareholders and removal by fellow directors, with only the latter requiring advance reasons. The court found the Timcke decision to be clearly wrong in reading such a requirement into section 71(2), and aligned itself with Miller and Besso, which held that shareholders may remove directors at will, subject only to notice and a reasonable opportunity to…
Source excerpt
Mashwayi Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others v Wescoal (Pty) Ltd and Others (1157/2023) [2025] ZASCA 5; [2025] 2 All SA 57 (SCA); 2025 (3) SA 441 (SCA) (29 January 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not exclude post-commencement creditors from voting on a business rescue plan. The Act's language, context, and purpose support a unitary interpretation of 'creditor' that includes both pre- and post-commencement creditors. The absence of express limitation and the requirement to balance stakeholder interests under section 7(k) of the Act mean that all creditors are entitled to vote. The court rejected reliance on foreign law and policy considerations, emphasizing that statutory interpretation must be based on the text an…
Source excerpt
Mahomed Mahier Tayob N.O and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (078256/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1158 (14 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside creditor votes rejecting a business rescue plan, finding the plan unrealistic, prolonged, and unfair to creditors.
Nedbank Limited v Sana Developers (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/080710) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1087 (23 October 2024)
The court found that Sana Developers failed to meet the jurisdictional requirement of reasonable prospects for rescue. The business rescue plan was generic, lacked detail, and relied on assets over which Nedbank held security. The practitioner failed to comply with statutory timelines and requirements, and the purported suspension of Nedbank's rights was impermissible. Nedbank, as the majority creditor and judgment holder, was entitled to enforce its rights. The only viable means to settle the debt was liquidation, not business rescue. The court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge and foun…
Source excerpt
Schwartz v Tornado Boerdery and Algemene Handelaars CC and Others (854/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 62 (12 July 2024)
The applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect of rescuing the first respondent as required by section 131 of the Companies Act. The court found that the applicant's cash flow projections were unreliable due to misrepresentation of cultivated hectares and failure to reconcile inconsistencies. The applicant did not fulfil his undertaking to make a substantial payment to the affected party, nor did he provide a credible explanation for this failure. The affidavit from the business rescue practitioner was disregarded as it was not included in the founding papers and lacked substantiatio…
Source excerpt
Vantage Mezzanine Fund II Partnership and Another v Hopeson and Others (2022/045978) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1361; 2024 (2) SA 550 (GJ) (24 November 2023)
The court allowed an amendment so creditors could invoke public-interest standing under section 157(1)(d) to seek delinquency relief under section 162.
Explore more
