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
Milne and Others v Babtista N.O and Others (38204/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 484 (27 May 2024)
Leave to appeal was refused in a company-law dispute over notice of a shareholders’ meeting and whether Recem Trust or Portion 7 Alsef qualified as shareholders.
Fernridge Office Park(Pty) Ltd v Honey and Another (2020/5184) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1464 (18 December 2023)
The court held that exceptions are pleadings and, as such, are capable of amendment under Rule 28. Rule 28(10) allows amendments at any stage before judgment, and the reference to 'judgment' in this context means the judgment on the exception, not the main action. The delay in seeking the amendment was explained by both parties' conduct and financial constraints, and no irregularity was raised. The court found no prejudice to the plaintiff that could not be cured by costs or adjournment. The proposed amendments raise issues worthy of consideration, particularly regarding the interplay between…
Source excerpt
Wescoal Mining (Pty) Ltd Another v Mkhombo NO and Other (2023-079991) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1097; 2024 (2) SA 563 (GJ) (2 October 2023)
The court held that the Companies Act, properly interpreted, confers voting rights at a section 152 meeting only on creditors who existed at the commencement of business rescue proceedings. Post-commencement creditors, such as Mashwayi Projects (Pty) Ltd, are not entitled to vote on the adoption of a business rescue plan. The statutory scheme distinguishes between pre- and post-commencement creditors, granting the latter enhanced security but not participatory voting rights. The business rescue plan presented at the 28 July 2023 meeting was validly adopted, as the exclusion of Mashwayi's vote…
Source excerpt
Dladla and Others v CNG Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (37732/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 816 (18 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order, finding no reasonable prospects of success and awarding costs.
TWK Agriculture Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Hoogveld Boerderybeleggings (Pty) Ltd and Others (273/2022) [2023] ZASCA 63; 2023 (5) SA 163 (SCA) (5 May 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of exceptions by the full court is not appealable because such orders lack finality; the trial court retains the power to reconsider the legal issues at trial. The doctrine of finality, as articulated in Zweni and affirmed in Maize Board, remains the central principle for determining appealability. The interests of justice standard, while relevant for the Constitutional Court, is not the appropriate criterion for the Supreme Court of Appeal, as it would undermine certainty and the orderly discharge of appellate functions. The only recognised…
Source excerpt
Henque 3935 CC t/a PQ Clothing Outlet v Commissioner for the SA Revenue Service (2020/35790) [2023] ZAGPJHC 234; 2023 (6) SA 260 (GJ); 86 SATC 136 (7 March 2023)
The court held that, under section 5(1) of the Income Tax Act read with sections 1, 92, and 96 of the Tax Administration Act, income tax only becomes due and payable when an assessment or additional assessment is made and issued to the taxpayer, specifying the payment date. In this case, the additional assessment for the 2017 tax year was made and issued after Henque commenced business rescue, with the payment date falling post-commencement. Accordingly, the liability constituted a post-commencement debt or finance under the Companies Act, not a pre-business rescue debt. The statutory morator…
Source excerpt
Rocky Park Farming Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rocky Park Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/2807) [2023] ZAGPJHC 141 (15 February 2023)
Leave to appeal was refused in a Companies Act dispute about whether a shareholders’ resolution was lawfully proposed and whether costs followed success.
Foxvest Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rocky Park Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/2807) [2023] ZAGPJHC 63 (27 January 2023)
The High Court set aside a shareholders’ resolution removing a director because it was proposed by only one shareholder, contrary to section 65(3) of the Companies Act.
Infinitum Holding (PTY) Ltd and Another v Lerm and Others (26799/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 341 (18 May 2022)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or the common law. The settlement agreement was validly made an order of court, and the applicants' attorneys were presumed authorized, with no evidence to the contrary. The resolution placing Infinitum under business rescue was not void ab initio, as section 130 of the Companies Act provides a mechanism for setting aside such resolutions, which was not utilized. The applicants' delay in bringing the application was unreasonable and unexplained. The doctrine of estoppel applied, preventing the a…
Source excerpt
Norman v Cash Flow Capital (Pty) Ltd (19832/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 334 (16 May 2022)
Leave to appeal was dismissed where the court held that business rescue of a company does not extinguish a natural person’s personal liability under a guarantee.
Explore more
