South Africa Case Law

Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others - Reasons (2023-060488)

Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others - Reasons (2023-060488) [2023] ZAGPJHC 275 (27 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-060488

Judge

RJ Moultrie

The court found that Lebashe failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief staying the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator was expressly empowered by the parties and AFSA rules to determine jurisdictional issues, including the interpretation and application of the restraint order. Errors of law or interpretation by the arbitrator do not constitute exceeding of powers or gross irregularity under section 33(1)(b) of the Arbitration Act. The curator was properly authorised under POCA and the restraint order to act on behalf of Ashbrook and Coral and appoint attorneys. The urgency…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Arbitration Review
• Restraint Order
• Curator Powers
• Prima Facie Right

Inyanga Trading 472 (Edms) BPK and Others v kruger NO and Others (38444/08)

Inyanga Trading 472 (Edms) BPK and Others v kruger NO and Others (38444/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 273 (25 June 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38444/08

Judge

F G Preller

The court dismissed an urgent bid to stop transfer of insolvent estate farm property, holding there was no fraud or procedural irregularity in the sale.

• Sale Of Insolvent Property
• Curator Powers
• Market Value Dispute
• Costs Order
• Sale-of-insolvent-property
• Curator-powers

Roux en Andere v Van Rensburg NO (649/94)

Roux en Andere v Van Rensburg NO (649/94) [1996] ZASCA 54; 1996 (4) SA 271 (SCA); [1996] 3 All SA 499 (A); (28 May 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

649/94

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Smalberger, Vivier, Howie, Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that under common law, the curator of an insolvent estate is entitled to demand possession of immovable property subject to a retention right, even before the creditor's claim is proven. The retention right does not entitle the holder to indefinitely delay the administration and realization of the estate. Section 47 of the Insolvency Act protects the retentor's rights if possession is surrendered and proper notice is given. The court found no reason to distinguish between movable and immovable assets in this context. The appellants' refusal to surrender posses…

Source excerpt

• Retention Rights
• Insolvency Procedure
• Preferent Claims
• Curator Powers