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
Marais and Another v Nortiger Logistics-SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (14866/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 498 (21 May 2025)
The court set aside the sale of a crane after finding a prior cession invalid and ineffective to transfer ownership, making the disposition voidable in liquidation.
Van Wyk Van Heerden Attorneys v Gore N.O and Another (828/2021) [2022] ZASCA 128; [2022] 4 All SA 649 (SCA); 2023 (1) SA 80 (SCA) (30 September 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a deposit into an attorney’s trust account is only impeachable under s 26(1)(b) if the attorney benefited.
Gore N.O and Another v Ward and Another (2977/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 3; 2022 (4) SA 213 (WCC) (31 January 2022)
The court found that Brandstock Exchange (Pty) Ltd, through its sole director Philp, entered into a contract with Louw, who paid funds into Brandstock's account. Despite Philp's fraudulent conduct, Brandstock acquired rights to the funds and exercised its power of disposal by making payments to the respondents. These payments were not made for value and adversely affected Brandstock's ability to reimburse its creditor, Louw. The court held that the payments constituted dispositions without value under section 26 of the Insolvency Act and section 340 of the Companies Act. The respondents were…
Source excerpt
Gore N.O and Another v Van Wyk Van Heerden Attorneys Incorporated (17897/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 95; [2022] 2 All SA 178 (WCC) (10 May 2021)
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the respondent failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court found that the payments made by Brandstock Exchange (Pty) Ltd to the respondent's trust account were dispositions without value as contemplated by section 26(1) of the Insolvency Act and section 340 of the Companies Act. The respondent benefitted from the payments, as it had control and disposal over the funds, fulfilling the 'benefit' requirement. The court dismissed the respondent's arguments regarding the…
Source excerpt
Exotic Fruit Company (Pty) Ltd v Zakharov and Another (14143/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 60 (30 March 2021)
The High Court dismissed a liquidators’ application for provisional sequestration because the alleged impeachable payment did not yet create a debt against the respondent.
Theba and Others, Bhana and Others; Essay and Others; Bhana and Others v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (73173/2014; 73174/2014; 73175/2014, 73763/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1000 (8 September 2015)
The High Court dismissed rescission applications arising from repayments made by Aurora while insolvent, finding no valid default explanation and no basis to disturb judgment.
keevy N.O and Others v Born Free Investments 364 (Pty) Ltd, Keevy N.O and Others v Born Free Investments 364 (Pty) Ltd (42316/10,42315/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 212 (3 December 2010)
The court found that the cessions by Central Lake Trading 256 (Pty) Ltd and Summer Season Trading 49 (Pty) Ltd to Born Free Investments 364 (Pty) Ltd were dispositions not made for value. The written memoranda of cession contained no reference to any value or method for determining value, and the respondent's affidavits failed to provide credible evidence of any agreement regarding value or that value was given. The respondent's version was vague, unconvincing, and did not raise a real, genuine, or bona fide dispute of fact. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule and the principles from Wightman and…
Source excerpt
Ramalho N.O. and Others v Venter (42105/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 632 (25 March 2010)
The court found that the payments made by Money Skills Limited to the defendant constituted dispositions of company property within the meaning of Section 2 of the Insolvency Act as read with Section 340(1) of the Companies Act. The defendant failed to prove that the dispositions were made in the ordinary course of business or that they were not intended to prefer one creditor above another. The evidence established that Money Skills was insolvent at the time of the payments and that the defendant, as financial director, was aware of the unlawful nature of the scheme and the company's inabili…
Source excerpt
Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Bowman NO (612/88) [1990] ZASCA 28; 1990 (3) SA 311 (AD); (27 March 1990)
The court held that payments made on fictitious tax assessments could be attacked as dispositions not made for value under insolvency law.
Explore more
