South Africa Case Law

Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd v Marcus M Farming CC (A191/2023)

Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd v Marcus M Farming CC (A191/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 154 (21 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A191/2023

Judges

Moshoana, Baqwa, Mazibuko

The appellate court found that Marcus M Farming CC was unable to pay its debts, as evidenced by its admitted indebtedness to Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd and failure to settle the debt despite a compromise agreement and partial payments. The respondent's alleged bona fide defence was not supported by reasonable grounds and did not discharge the onus required to resist liquidation. The court held that interlocutory applications, including those based on lis pendens, irregular step proceedings, and abuse of process, were without merit and dismissed them. The court refused to admit further evidenc…

Source excerpt

• Final Liquidation Order
• Companies Act Section 344
• Inability To Pay Debts
• Bona Fide Defence
• Judicial Discretion On Liquidation
• Admission Of Evidence On Appeal

Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank v Enroute Traders 30 CC (3117/2017)

Firstrand Bank Ltd t/a Wesbank v Enroute Traders 30 CC (3117/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 2 (16 January 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

3117/2017

Judge

NG Beshe

High Court granted final winding-up of a close corporation after finding it unable to pay debts under the Companies Act.

• Winding Up Of Close Corporation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act Section 344
• Companies Act Section 345
• Winding-up

Scania Finance Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff Johannesburg Zinandi Trading 1009 (Pty) Ltd (0017/2015)

Scania Finance Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff Johannesburg Zinandi Trading 1009 (Pty) Ltd (0017/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 189 (31 May 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0017/2015

Judge

Ismail

The court found that the second respondent failed to provide financial statements or management accounts to demonstrate its ability to pay its debts. The respondent did not pay the amount it admitted owing, nor did it provide security or a plausible explanation for non-payment. The court held that the applicant had complied with all statutory formalities for service and security. The respondent's points in limine regarding joinder and statutory compliance were dismissed as lacking merit. The court concluded that the second respondent is commercially insolvent and liable to be finally wound up…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Commercial Insolvency
• Creditor Application
• Companies Act Section 344
• Companies Act Section 345

Paarwater v South Sahara Investments (Pty) Ltd (091/2004)

Paarwater v South Sahara Investments (Pty) Ltd (091/2004) [2005] ZASCA 4; [2005] 4 All SA 185 (SCA) (3 March 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

091/2004

Judges

Zulman, Farlam, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that it was just and equitable to wind up the respondent company under section 344(h) of the Companies Act. The evidence did not establish that the company was a partnership or quasi-partnership, nor that the breakdown in relations between the appellant and Bothma precluded proper management of the company or justified liquidation. Disputes of fact raised by the respondent were neither far-fetched nor untenable and could not be resolved on the papers. The appellant did n…

Source excerpt

• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Companies Act Section 344
• Quasi Partnership
• Onus Of Proof
• Dispute Of Fact
• Shareholders Agreement