Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2024] ZANWHC 244

F&I Services (Pty) Ltd v Fumiel Transport and Projects (M113/2022)

F&I Services (Pty) Ltd v Fumiel Transport and Projects (M113/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 244 (13 September 2024)

Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
M113/2022
Judge
M S Moagi

The court found that the Applicant had established the Respondent's indebtedness for both scholar and private hire transport services, and the Respondent failed to rebut this on bona fide and reasonable grounds. The Respondent's defence that payment was contingent on receipt from NTI was not supported by evidence, and the Respondent did not dispute the computation of amounts claimed or address the private hire invoices. The section 345 demand was valid, and the Respondent neglected to pay or provide security for more than three weeks. Points in limine raised by the Respondent, including lis a…

Source excerpt

  • Winding Up Of Company
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Creditor S Rights
  • Defective Demand
  • Lis Alibi Pendens
  • Locus Standi
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2024] ZAGPJHC 413

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Smartpurse Solutions (Pty) Ltd (35882/2022)

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Smartpurse Solutions (Pty) Ltd (35882/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 413 (24 April 2024)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
35882/2022
Judge
Meiring

The applicant established that the respondent failed to comply with a statutory demand served at its registered office, satisfying the requirements of section 345(1)(a)(i) of the Companies Act, 1973. Alternatively, the respondent is unable to pay its debts as contemplated by section 345(1)(c). The respondent's defences lack merit: the contractual domicilium provision is permissive, not peremptory, and does not override the statutory requirement for service at the registered office. The existence of contractual remedies does not preclude winding-up proceedings, and the applicant did not abuse…

Source excerpt

  • Winding Up Of Company
  • Creditor S Rights
  • Abuse Of Process
  • Service Of Process
  • Contractual Remedies
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2024] ZAGPPHC 222

BTW and Associates (Pty) Ltd v Maragela Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (9193/2022)

BTW and Associates (Pty) Ltd v Maragela Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd (9193/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 222 (19 March 2024)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
9193/2022
Judge
RJ Groenewald

The applicant established that it is a creditor of the respondent for an amount exceeding R100, that the debt is due and payable, and that the respondent failed to pay after proper service of a section 345 notice. The respondent's defences were inconsistent, contradictory, and unsupported by evidence. The cap argument failed to account for VAT, leaving a substantial amount unpaid. The prescription defence was defeated by the respondent's own admissions, which interrupted prescription. The respondent did not make full disclosure of its financial position, justifying a negative inference regard…

Source excerpt

  • Winding Up Of Company
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Bona Fide Dispute Of Debt
  • Creditor S Rights
  • Practice Directives Compliance
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.