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
G.D v G.J.D and Others (2427/2020) [2025] ZAECQBHC 22 (29 July 2025)
The High Court set aside an urgent order suspending business rescue, holding that affected employees and creditors were not joined and would be prejudiced.
Imperial Logistics Advance (Pty) Ltd v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Others (2023/054694) [2025] ZAGPPHC 737 (24 July 2025)
The High Court granted an interim interdict stopping the Master’s appointment of additional liquidators and the postponement of a section 417/418 inquiry pending Part B.
Maree and Others v Hanaline Boerdery Proprietary Limited (2750/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 111 (9 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to extend time and suspend liquidation proceedings, and placed the respondent under provisional liquidation with a rule nisi.
Poole and Another v Rashida Industries (Pty) Ltd and Others (067770/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1872 (26 October 2023)
The High Court granted section 18(3) relief, allowing a section 34 liquidation order to operate pending appeal and awarding attorney-and-client costs.
LSO Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ndyamara and Others (56620/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 168 (23 March 2022)
The High Court refused leave to appeal, holding there were no reasonable prospects of success against its ruling on section 133 and amendment of a business rescue plan.
LSO Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ndyamara and Others (56620/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 49 (26 January 2022)
The court held that the Companies Act does not provide for the amendment of a business rescue plan once it has been finally adopted by the required majority of creditors. Any provision in the plan purporting to give the business rescue practitioner the right to amend the plan after adoption is invalid and contrary to the statutory scheme, which vests control in the creditors through a democratic voting process. The purported amendment was not validly adopted, as it did not receive the statutorily required 75% majority vote. The application to set aside the amendments was therefore granted, an…
Source excerpt
Arqomanzi Proprietary Limited v Vantage Goldfields Proprietary Limited and Others (Reasons) (549/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 64 (28 August 2021)
The High Court held that business rescue practitioners could not unilaterally amend adopted business rescue plans and granted interim relief by rule nisi.
Nathan and Another v Nathan and Others (D1322/2021) [2021] ZAKZPHC 39 (30 June 2021)
The court found that the applicants lacked locus standi as they were not affected persons under section 128(1)(a) of the Companies Act. Their interest as beneficiaries of a trust holding shares in the company was insufficient to confer standing. The application was further defective for failing to seek leave to institute proceedings in a separate substantive application as required by section 133(1)(b). The applicants did not present a well-motivated application addressing the relevant factors, including the interests of creditors and employees, the impact on the company's financial health, a…
Source excerpt
Van der Merwe v Empedocles NO and Others (33977/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 282 (9 November 2020)
The court found that the company was factually and commercially insolvent, with liabilities far exceeding assets and the applicant's creditor claim omitted from the voluntary liquidation process. The court held that, in law, it is not necessary to set aside the voluntary winding-up before granting a compulsory winding-up order. The voluntary liquidation process, including the appointment of the current liquidators, was confirmed, and the compulsory winding-up order was granted. The date of commencement for the winding-up is the date of registration of the special resolution. The applicant and…
Source excerpt
Lange N.O and Others v Maartens N.O and Others (1094/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 8 (20 March 2020)
The court found that the first applicant, as the sole member of Blazecor 116 CC and trustee of Arizma Trust, had the legal capacity to pass the resolution commencing business rescue. The trust itself could not hold membership; only the nominated trustee could act. The application was an action against the company in business rescue, requiring compliance with s133 of the Companies Act, which the applicants failed to obtain. Furthermore, the time to challenge the validity of the resolution had expired upon adoption of the business rescue plan, as established by binding authority. The argument t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
