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
Mere and Others v Amogelang Logistics CC and Others (124343/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1270 (22 November 2024)
The High Court refused an urgent bid to place Amogelang Logistics CC under business rescue, finding no factual basis for a reasonable prospect of rescue.
Van Der Heever and Another v Bronx Mining And Investment (Pty) Ltd (2021/29817) [2024] ZAGPJHC 636 (10 July 2024)
The High Court extended a rule nisi in a provisional winding-up matter, allowing a proposed compromise to proceed. It also granted one creditor's intervention and dismissed another.
Parkers and Others v Atvance Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (2023/00336) [2024] ZAGPJHC 628 (8 July 2024)
The Applicants failed to establish any reasonable prospect of rescuing the First Respondent. The evidence did not support their assertions regarding increased rental income, outdoor advertising, or investor interest. The major creditor, FNB, was unwilling to restructure the debt, and no case was made out that this stance was unreasonable. The application was prosecuted in a dilatory manner, and the Applicants' conduct indicated an ulterior motive to delay liquidation and accountability. The application constituted an abuse of process and of the business rescue procedure. Accordingly, the appl…
Source excerpt
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
Kullmann (8657-2023), Ex parte [2024] ZAGPJHC 426 (2 May 2024)
The applicant failed to comply strictly with section 4 of the Insolvency Act, but subsequently remedied the non-compliance by publishing the required notices and dispatching them to creditors and SARS. The court condoned the late compliance in the interests of justice. However, the applicant's founding affidavit was lacking in detail and failed to provide full and frank disclosure regarding his financial affairs, assets, and liabilities. The asset valuations provided were inadequate and not properly substantiated. The applicant did not demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that his estate…
Source excerpt
Barnard N.O and Others ; In re TFM Industries (Pty) Ltd (2023–035743) [2023] ZAGPJHC 420 (3 May 2023)
The High Court granted urgent relief to liquidators of TFM Industries, authorising steps to remove and store assets after lease termination, and admitted intervening parties.
FA Konstruksie CC v Mhonyini Trading Enterprize CC In re Asphaltic (Pty) Ltd v Mhonyini Trading Enterprize CC (3182/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 59 (22 July 2022)
The court found that section 347(5) of the Companies Act prohibits the granting of a final winding-up order where a provisional order is already in force. The final order obtained by FA Konstruksie CC was granted while the provisional order in Asphaltic's application was still pending, rendering the final order a nullity. The winding-up is deemed to have commenced on 17 February 2021, the date of Asphaltic's application. The court exercised its discretion under section 354(1) of the Companies Act to set aside the proceedings in FA's application, as the final order should not have been granted…
Source excerpt
ABSA Bank Limited v Go On Supermarket (Pty) Limited (The Spar Group Limited intervening) (9442/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 173 (24 March 2022)
The court found that ABSA was entitled to perfect its security under the general notarial bond during business rescue proceedings, as business rescue constitutes a form of judicial management, triggering ABSA's rights under the bond. The business rescue practitioner's consent to the perfection was valid, and symbolic possession through the practitioner as ABSA's agent was sufficient to establish a real right of pledge. The Spar Group Limited was granted leave to intervene due to its substantial interest as a major creditor and holder of a special notarial bond. The court agreed that assets su…
Source excerpt
Kgoro Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cedar Park Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Others (45678/2018; 5586/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 178 (30 June 2020)
The court found that the business rescue application was ill-conceived and lacked a factual foundation for a reasonable prospect of rescuing Cedar Park. The applicants failed to disclose that the sale agreement relied upon was interdicted, and there was no evidence of alternative buyers or funding. Kgoro lacked locus standi, having ceded its shares to Vantage, and Regiments' intervention was a belated attempt to salvage the application. The applicants' conduct was dilatory and intended to delay the inevitable liquidation. The restraint order was irrelevant to the business rescue proceedings,…
Source excerpt
Vleissentraal Bloemfontein (Pty) Ltd and Others v Madikor Sestien (Pty) Ltd; Vencor Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Le Roux N.O and Others (3039/2018; 1699/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 17 (6 May 2020)
The Court found that Madikor Sestien (Pty) Ltd is commercially insolvent, having failed to pay its secured creditors despite repeated undertakings and settlement agreements. The business rescue application brought by the Kremetart Trust was deemed an abuse of process, lacking genuine intent and proper evidentiary support, and was aimed at frustrating the final liquidation order. The proposed business rescue plan relied on the sale of assets over which secured creditors held security, without proper valuations or their consent, contrary to statutory protections. The Court held that business re…
Source excerpt
Explore more
