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
Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025)
The High Court granted Capitec leave to appeal on a section 133 Companies Act interpretation dispute about the meaning of “legal proceeding” and related phrases.
RGS Group Holdings Limited v Tongaat Hulett Limited (In Business Rescue) and Others (D13702/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 8 (18 February 2025)
The court found that RGS failed to demonstrate urgency, as the grounds for urgency had existed since November 2023 and RGS did not act promptly. RGS participated in the vote on the Vision Plan and did not seek to interdict its adoption or implementation at the appropriate time. The apprehension of irreparable harm advanced by RGS was based on speculation rather than concrete evidence. The court held that RGS did not satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict, as it had an alternative remedy in pursuing Part B of its application and the balance of convenience weighed against granting th…
Source excerpt
Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Unahina Business Solutions (Pty) Limited (A2023/041004) [2024] ZAGPJHC 554 (30 April 2024)
The appellant failed to meet the requirements for rescission of the default judgment. No adequate reasons for default were provided, and no bona fide defence on the merits was raised. The technical defences advanced—application of section 133 of the Companies Act, lack of jurisdiction, lack of locus standi, and non-joinder—were all found to be unsustainable. Section 133 did not apply as PRASA was not in business rescue; jurisdiction was established by PRASA's head office being in Johannesburg; locus standi was validly derived from the deed of cession; and non-joinder of Biggietech was not req…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited v Phiri N.O. and Others (3881/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 365 (28 October 2022)
The court granted ABSA interim relief for 43 financed movable assets still unpaid, pending declaratory proceedings, and rejected urgency, jurisdiction, and joinder objections.
Guardrisk Insurance Company Limited v GD Irons Construction (Pty) Ltd and Others (24054/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 352 (17 May 2022)
Urgent spoliation relief was granted to restore Guardrisk’s access to property and assets. A counter-application seeking return of the assets was dismissed.
LSO Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ndyamara and Others (56620/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 168 (23 March 2022)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, holding there were no reasonable prospects of success against its ruling on section 133 and amendment of a business rescue plan.
Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (85778/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 May 2021)
The High Court held that a properly made business rescue application suspended the liquidation proceedings and dismissed the applicant’s request to proceed under section 133(1)(b).
Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dilokong Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited and Others (45259/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 636 (29 October 2020)
The High Court varied its provisional costs order, holding the applicant liable for amendment costs, including two counsel, and reserving the rest as costs in the cause.
Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dilokong Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited and Others (45259/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 753 (19 October 2020)
The court held that the applicant's Rule 28 application for amendment and the corresponding amendments to the notice of motion should be granted. The court found that the relevant facts were largely common cause and that the business rescue plan was not aimed at saving the company but at paying creditors, with no prospect of regaining financial health. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting that the interests of justice required the granting of leave to proceed against the first respondent under section 133(1) of the Companies Act. The court rejected a technical…
Source excerpt
Safari Thatching Lowveld CC v Misty Mountain Trading 2 (Pty) Ltd (Jeroldi Intervening, Brink Intervening) (52115/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 832; 2016 (3) SA 209 (GP) (11 December 2015)
The court found that the Respondent was both factually and commercially insolvent, with numerous unpaid creditors and an unresolved deadlock between directors and shareholders. The Applicant had met all formal requirements for winding-up. Although a second business rescue application had been launched, no evidence was presented to show a reasonable prospect of rescue or that business rescue would be more beneficial to creditors than liquidation. The court held that, in circumstances where legal proceedings had already commenced prior to the business rescue application, it is legally competent…
Source excerpt
Explore more
