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] ZAFSHC 230

Exceed Plant Trading CC v LKGA Construction & Projects 1 CC (2556/2024)

Exceed Plant Trading CC v LKGA Construction & Projects 1 CC (2556/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 230 (8 August 2024)

Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
2556/2024
Judge
JP Daffue

The applicant established that the respondent is commercially insolvent, having failed to pay admitted debts in excess of R 1.8 million for equipment rental, despite proper statutory demand and compliance with procedural requirements. The respondent did not respond to the demand, failed to provide evidence of assets, liabilities, or imminent payments, and did not raise a bona fide dispute on reasonable grounds regarding the admitted invoices. The court found that the applicant is entitled to a final liquidation order, as the respondent is unable to pay its debts and no credible basis exists t…

Source excerpt

  • Final Liquidation
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Creditor Winding Up
  • Statutory Demand
  • Bona Fide Dispute
Read case analysis
Banking And Finance [2016] ZAGPJHC 20

Firstrand Bank Limited v Hazan and Another; Firstrand Bank Limited v Hazan Wholesalers and Distributors CC (2013/47366, 2013/47367)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Hazan and Another; Firstrand Bank Limited v Hazan Wholesalers and Distributors CC (2013/47366, 2013/47367) [2016] ZAGPJHC 20; [2016] 2 All SA 112 (GJ) (18 February 2016)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2013/47366, 2013/47367
Judge
Opperman AJ

The court found that Firstrand Bank Limited is a creditor of Hazan Wholesalers and Distributors CC, with valid claims under both the facility and loan agreements, supported by contractually valid certificates of indebtedness. The suretyship agreements signed by Mr and Mrs Hazan contractually permit the use of such certificates against them. The respondents' defences of lack of authority, economic duress, collusion, and prejudice were rejected as unsupported by the facts and law. The cession of claims by the Savoy to Mr Hazan was void as it occurred after the commencement of liquidation and no…

Source excerpt

  • Suretyship Liability
  • Certificate Of Indebtedness
  • Company Liquidation
  • Economic Duress
  • Performance Guarantee
  • Creditor Winding Up
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2014] ZAWCHC 90

Questek Transit Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Lumen Technologies CC; InRe: Lumen Technologies CC v Questek Transit Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another (19604/2013)

Questek Transit Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Lumen Technologies CC; InRe: Lumen Technologies CC v Questek Transit Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another (19604/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 90 (12 June 2014)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
19604/2013
Judge
Bozalek

The court found that Lumen failed to establish a common mistake justifying rescission of the order under Rule 42(1)(c) or the common law ground of justus error. Both parties were unaware of the four-month time limit for the arbitration award, but this did not amount to a material mistake excluding consensus. The court held that agreements reached between legal representatives and made orders of court are binding and should be enforced. The court granted Questek's counter-application to extend the period for making the arbitration award under section 23 of the Arbitration Act, finding good cau…

Source excerpt

  • Provisional Liquidation
  • Arbitration Award Extension
  • Rescission Of Order
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Creditor Winding Up
  • Costs De Bonis Propriis
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2012] ZAWCHC 391

Edge Geo LLC v Geothermal Energy Systems (Pty) Ltd (6883/12)

Edge Geo LLC v Geothermal Energy Systems (Pty) Ltd (6883/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 391 (14 December 2012)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
6883/12
Judge
Dolamo

The court found that the applicant had proved, by virtue of the deeming provisions of section 345 of the Companies Act 1973, that the respondent was commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts. The respondent's dispute over its indebtedness was not bona fide, as evidenced by its repeated acknowledgments of the debt and the late, unsupported counterclaim. The transitional provisions of the Companies Act 2008 do not abolish the principle of commercial insolvency as a ground for winding up, and section 345 of the 1973 Act remains applicable. The respondent failed to demonstrate a genuine…

Source excerpt

  • Provisional Liquidation
  • Commercial Insolvency
  • Companies Act 1973
  • Companies Act 2008
  • Bona Fide Dispute
  • Creditor Winding Up
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.