South Africa Case Law

Cooper N.O and Others v VAB Sales and Distribution (Pty) Ltd (1498/22)

Cooper N.O and Others v VAB Sales and Distribution (Pty) Ltd (1498/22) [2024] ZAWCHC 379; [2025] 1 All SA 178 (WCC) (19 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1498/22

Judge

S Mthimunye

The court found that all four payments made by Cape Basic Products (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) to VAB Sales and Distribution (Pty) Ltd after the commencement of winding up constitute void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act. The respondent’s argument that Savers Lane Holdings (Pty) Ltd was a separate entity was rejected, as evidence established that Savers Lane was merely the trading name of the third applicant. The payments were not made in the ordinary course of business but were preferential, giving the respondent an unfair advantage over other creditors. The court determ…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Void Dispositions
• Preferential Payments
• Creditor Protection
• Companies Act Section 341
• Liquidation Orders

Cooper N.O and Others v Blue Label Distributions (2022/5762)

Cooper N.O and Others v Blue Label Distributions (2022/5762) [2024] ZAGPJHC 615; [2024] 3 All SA 800 (GJ) (2 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/5762

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court found that the payments made by CBP to Blue Label after provisional liquidation were not ring-fenced for suppliers and were deposited into Blue Label's general bank account, over which Blue Label had sole disposal rights. Blue Label benefitted from the payments by earning commission and improving its position, thus it was not a mere conduit. The payments constituted void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act, as they were made after the establishment of the concursus creditorum and preferred Blue Label above other creditors. The court held that the liquidators were…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Void Dispositions
• Concursus Creditorum
• Preferential Payments
• Companies Act Section 341
• Insolvency Act Interpretation

De Wet & Others v Opis Advisory (Pty) Limited & Others (2020-14081)

De Wet & Others v Opis Advisory (Pty) Limited & Others (2020-14081) [2024] ZAGPJHC 174 (27 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020-14081

Judge

Adams

The court found that the payment of R3 million by Bapo Freight after the commencement of liquidation proceedings was a disposition falling squarely within the ambit of section 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The respondents' version that the funds were ring-fenced and not intended to become Bapo Freight's property was rejected as far-fetched and unsupported by evidence. The payment was not made to a creditor but to the business rescue practitioner and his company, and no valid agreement or ring-fencing was established. Even if the payment was considered post-commencement finance, it w…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Void Disposition
• Companies Act Section 341
• Post Commencement Finance
• Liquidation Proceedings

Bekker N.O and Another v L and J Gemmel Plant Services (Pty) Ltd (29564/2022)

Bekker N.O and Another v L and J Gemmel Plant Services (Pty) Ltd (29564/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1922 (15 November 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29564/2022

Judge

Noko

The High Court held that post-liquidation payments made by Diesel Power to the respondent were void dispositions and set them aside under section 341(2).

• Void Disposition
• Liquidation Payments
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Adiectus Solutionis Causa
• Companies Act Section 341
• Plant Hire Agreement

Motala and Seriti NNO v Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd, Motala and Seriti NNO v Jofida Construction (Pty) Ltd (35649/2009, 35953/2009)

Motala and Seriti NNO v Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd, Motala and Seriti NNO v Jofida Construction (Pty) Ltd (35649/2009, 35953/2009) [2009] ZAGPPHC 116 (4 August 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35649/2009, 35953/2009

Judge

N M Mavundla

Liquidators recovered post-liquidation payments made by Hua Wei Manufacturing to two respondents and the court held the payments void under section 341(2).

• Liquidation Proceedings
• Impeachable Disposition
• Preferential Payment
• Companies Act Section 341
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Liquidation-proceedings

Ekosto 1038 Investments (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nedbank Limited and Others (26291/2005)

Ekosto 1038 Investments (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) v Nedbank Limited and Others (26291/2005) [2008] ZAGPHC 68 (15 February 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

26291/2005

Judge

Botha

The High Court dismissed a liquidator’s claim against a bank and a cheque signatory, holding that bank liability required actual notice of liquidation and the pleaded case failed.

• Void Dispositions In Liquidation
• Bank Liability For Cheques
• Authority To Draw Cheques
• Companies Act Section 341
• Bills Of Exchange Act Section 73
• Liquidator Notice Requirements