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
Cape Connexions (Pty) Ltd v Wolves Den Farming (Pty) Ltd and Others (9760/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 77 (25 April 2025)
The High Court granted business rescue for Wolves Den Farming, finding proper service, bona fide motives, and a reasonable prospect of rescue.
First Rand Bank Ltd and Another v Azrapart (Pty) Limited and Another (4437/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 108 (27 March 2025)
Interim business rescue decision under section 131 was postponed pending confirmation of Redcore funding, while a referral to oral evidence was dismissed.
Moabi and Others v Amogelang Logistics CC and Others (Reasons) (2024-142409) [2025] ZAGPPHC 178 (25 February 2025)
The applicants failed to establish a reasonable prospect of rescuing Amogelang Logistics CC. The contracts relied upon were either invalid or incomplete, and the financial information provided was inconsistent and unsubstantiated. The liquidators' report, admitted as hearsay under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, raised serious concerns about questionable transactions, tax non-compliance, and the true state of the company's assets and liabilities. Statutory protections for employees under liquidation were found to be sufficient, and the applicants did not counter the evid…
Source excerpt
Singh v Tippertech Proprietary Limited and Another (7987/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 5 (21 January 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect for rescuing the respondent company as required by section 131(4)(a) of the Companies Act. The applicant's case was undermined by material non-disclosures and misrepresentations regarding the surrender of assets and the existence of new contracts. The only financial particulars provided were vague and unsupported by documentation. The applicant did not comply with procedural requirements for notice to affected persons and failed to deliver a replying affidavit to rebut serious allegations of dishonesty. The court acc…
Source excerpt
Firstrand Bank Limited and Another v Azrapart (Pty) Ltd and Another (4437/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 275 (3 September 2024)
An urgent business rescue application was postponed after the court found notice to affected persons under section 131(2)(b) of the Companies Act was not properly proved.
Schipper v Tirisano Property Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (22983/23; 16033/2023; 18657/2023; 3973/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 125 (8 May 2024)
The court found that Tirisano Property Group (Pty) Ltd failed to establish a reasonable prospect of rescue as required by section 131(4) of the Companies Act. The proposals for restoring solvency were speculative, unsupported by reliable evidence, and contradicted by chronic financial distress and failed attempts to raise finance. The majority creditor, Courthiel, opposed business rescue and would not support any plan, which is a legitimate obstacle. The company had been mismanaged with reckless disregard for creditors, and the delay in seeking business rescue undermined the appropriateness o…
Source excerpt
Keaton Energy Holdings Ltd and Another v DGI Trading Mining Equipment (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/020761) [2024] ZAGPJHC 327 (29 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to place Keaton Mining in business rescue, finding the papers too speculative to show a reasonable prospect of rescue.
Ally v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (1209/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 36 (1 February 2024)
The court found that the urgency of the application was justified by the timing of the business rescue practitioner's report, which was only received on 25 January 2024. The evidence presented, including substantial assets, monthly rental income, stock, offers to purchase properties, and employee support, established sufficient grounds for a reasonable prospect of rescuing Fourth Respondent. The court applied the principles from section 131 of the Companies Act and Oakdene Square Properties, noting that a detailed plan is not required but factual grounds must be shown. The court concluded tha…
Source excerpt
S E Ventures (Pty) Ltd v Kareeboom Kimberley (Pty) Ltd and Others (6017/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 373 (4 October 2023)
The court found that SEV's application for business rescue was speculative and lacked a firm factual foundation. The four proposed rescue plans were reliant on uncertain future events, such as the approval and development of a 150 MW solar plant, for which necessary permits, approvals, and financing were not secured. Previous authorisations had lapsed, and there was no evidence of a binding lease agreement or financial capacity of Rodicon or any third-party developer. The asset valuation presented by SEV was unsupported, and the liquidators' valuation indicated that liabilities exceeded asset…
Source excerpt
Gouws v Eraki Trading 12 CC t/a Timmermans Kitchens and Others (2944/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 953 (16 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed a business rescue application, finding the applicant’s evidence about future work and recovery prospects was speculative and uncorroborated.
Explore more
