South Africa Case Law

Standard Bank of South Africa and Another v Setshabelo Trading 647 (Pty) Ltd and Another (3085/2025)

Standard Bank of South Africa and Another v Setshabelo Trading 647 (Pty) Ltd and Another (3085/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 208 (7 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3085/2025

Judge

Reinders

The High Court held that a business rescue resolution was adopted while liquidation proceedings were still pending, contrary to section 129(2)(a) of the Companies Act.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Intervention Application
• Business-rescue
• Companies-act-section-129

MasterCard Foundation v Africa Founders Ventures NPC and Others (2025/067947)

MasterCard Foundation v Africa Founders Ventures NPC and Others (2025/067947) [2025] ZAGPJHC 685 (4 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/067947

Judge

Johann Gautschi

The court found that the business rescue resolution was invalid due to the failure to notify the applicant, a creditor and affected person, as required by section 129(3) of the Companies Act. The Foundation’s status as a creditor was established by its claim for repayment of rebranding costs and return of the Remaining Grant, both acknowledged by AFV. The practitioner’s conduct in using business rescue for an informal wind-down, refusing to terminate proceedings despite clear insolvency and lack of prospects for rescue, and disregarding legal authority constituted an abuse of process. The cou…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Winding Up
• Creditor Notice Requirements
• Abuse Of Process
• Interim Interdict

Piper and Another v Glosam Manganese (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/069923; 2024/053300)

Piper and Another v Glosam Manganese (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/069923; 2024/053300) [2025] ZAGPJHC 63 (10 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/069923; 2024/053300

Judge

Fisher

The court found that Glosam Manganese (Pty) Ltd is financially distressed, with substantial debts and no income due to the unlawful diversion of funds by Piper and Neethling. The procedural requirements for business rescue under section 129 were met, and any minor non-compliance was not prejudicial. The allegations of conspiracy and lack of independence or skill on the part of the BRPs were not established on the papers. The application to set aside the business rescue resolution and remove the BRPs was dismissed. The business rescue application for Wepex Trading (Pty) Ltd was also dismissed,…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Companies Act Section 130
• Financial Distress
• Director Fiduciary Duties
• Costs Punitive

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022)

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1023 (11 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

05174/2022

Judge

Wepener

The court found that at the time Beryl Partners initiated business rescue proceedings for Beryl Coal, multiple liquidation applications were pending, including those by SG Coal, D&R, and Jabula. This rendered the business rescue proceedings invalid under section 129(2) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, the business rescue application failed to comply with section 131(6) due to improper service and lack of notification to SARS, a major creditor. The return of service could not be amended or condoned without the Sheriff's support, and the evidence did not justify such relief. Inceku Mining's c…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Service Of Process
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act Section 129
• Consolidation Of Applications

Tayob N.O and Another v Shiva Uranium Proprietary Limited and Others (62989/2021)

Tayob N.O and Another v Shiva Uranium Proprietary Limited and Others (62989/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 220 (23 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62989/2021

Judge

Msimang

The court held that the applicants, Mahomed Mahier Tayob N.O. and Eugene Januarie N.O., are the validly appointed business rescue practitioners of Shiva Uranium Proprietary Limited, as previously determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. The appointment of Mr Damons as a business rescue practitioner by the directors on 2 September 2021 was set aside as unlawful, since the directors were not entitled to appoint a new practitioner except in accordance with section 139 of the Companies Act. The appointment of Mr Monyela as a junior business rescue practitioner remai…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Appointment Of Practitioners
• Companies Act Section 129
• Companies Act Section 139
• Urgent Interdict
• Corporate Governance

Mango Pilots Association and Others v Mango Airlines SOC Limited and Another (21/35958)

Mango Pilots Association and Others v Mango Airlines SOC Limited and Another (21/35958) [2021] ZAGPJHC 876 (7 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/35958

Judge

M M Antonie

The court held that Mango Airlines' board resolution to commence business rescue was valid and effective, as it was adopted before liquidation proceedings were initiated. The five business day period in section 129(3) of the Companies Act applies only to procedural requirements after filing, not to the time between adoption and filing. Ministerial approval under the PFMA was required before filing the resolution, and Mango complied with this requirement. The applicants' urgent application for business rescue was incompetent because a board resolution had already been adopted, and their remedy…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Public Finance Management Act
• Procedural Nullity
• Affected Persons
• Ministerial Approval

ERF [....] Hyde Park (Pty) Ltd and Another v United Technical Equipment Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (30706/2021)

ERF [....] Hyde Park (Pty) Ltd and Another v United Technical Equipment Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (30706/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 464 (3 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

30706/2021

Judge

Makume

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to set aside a sale in execution, finding no effective business rescue was in place when the property was sold.

• Sale In Execution
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Setting Aside Judicial Sale
• Companies Act Section 129
• Interdictory Relief
• Sale-in-execution

Nedbank Ltd v Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 59 CC and Another (1301/2020P)

Nedbank Ltd v Pilisanani Trading Enterprise 59 CC and Another (1301/2020P) [2021] ZAKZPHC 34 (18 June 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1301/2020P

Judge

Van Zyl

The High Court set aside a voluntary business rescue resolution and the practitioner’s appointment, finding no reasonable prospect of rescuing the company.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Procedural Irregularity
• Setting Aside Resolution
• Creditor Rights
• Business-rescue

trustees for the time being of the Gamsy Family Trust and Others v Mine Restoration Investments Ltd and Others (20/18130)

trustees for the time being of the Gamsy Family Trust and Others v Mine Restoration Investments Ltd and Others (20/18130) [2020] ZAGPJHC 356 (13 August 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/18130

Judge

U Bhoola

The High Court set aside a business rescue resolution because the notice to affected persons was published too late, rendering the resolution a nullity.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Financial Distress
• Urgent Application
• Board Resolution
• Procedural Compliance

Top Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kotze (38424/2016)

Top Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kotze (38424/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1268 (12 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38424/2016

Judge

Phiyega

The court dismissed a rescission application and held that the business rescue resolution remained invalidly challenged because Kotze, a creditor, was not notified as an affected person.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Affected Person Notification
• Resolution Nullity
• Creditor Rights
• Business-rescue