Kotze v Axal Properties 2 CC and Others (2011/35866) [2012] ZAGPJHC 119 (14 June 2012)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2011/35866
Judge
Sutherland
The High Court held that Mega Super Cement CC remained a trader under the Insolvency Act and that the applicant’s judgment debt was connected to its business.
McCarthy Ltd. v Gore NO (163/06) [2007] ZASCA 32; [2007] SCA 32 (RSA) ; [2007] 4 All SA 1212 (SCA) ; 2007 (6) SA 366 (SCA) (28 March 2007)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
163/06
Judges
Harms, Brand, Nugent, Jafta, Theron
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the definition of 'trader' in section 2 of the Insolvency Act is confined to the primary business activities of an enterprise and does not extend to incidental activities such as the sale of vehicles or factoring of book debts. The company’s main business was transport haulage, and the sale of vehicles and book debts were merely incidental to that business. The court rejected the liquidator’s argument that substantial incidental activities could render the company a 'trader' under the Act. The trial court erred by adopting an overly broad interpretation o…
Roos NO and Another v Kevin & Lasia Property Investment Bk and Another (30533/01) [2005] ZAGPHC 88 (7 September 2005)
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
30533/01
Judge
E M Patel
The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the insolvent company was a 'trader' as defined in section 2 of the Insolvency Act. The company was a property investment entity holding immovable property for capital investment, not for sale or exchange as stock in trade. Building operations were performed by contractors, not by the company itself as a business activity. The Supreme Court of Appeal had already determined that the letting and hiring of immovable property does not fall within the definition of 'trader' for section 34(1) purposes. The applicants' attempt to introduce…
Kevin & Lasia Property Investments CC and Another v Roos NO and Others (480/2002) [2003] ZASCA 149; [2004] 1 All SA 380 (SCA); 2004 (4) SA 103 (SCA) (1 December 2003)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
480/2002
Judges
Howie, Navsa, Mthiyane, Cloete, Lewis
SCA considered whether a withdrawn admission bound appellants and whether s 34(1) of the Insolvency Act applied to a property sale by a company said to be a trader.
Kelvin Park Properties CC v Paterson NO (558/98) [2000] ZASCA 58; 2001 (3) SA 31 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 18 (A) (29 September 2000)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
558/98
Judges
Smalberger, Grosskopf, Scott, Farlam, Mthiyane
The court held that the insolvent was a trader at the time of the transfer because he still had substantial trade debts and the business had not been wound up. The cessation of daily trading activities did not alter his status as a trader for the purposes of section 2 of the Insolvency Act. The property formed part of the business as contemplated in section 34(1), given its adaptation for business use and its integral role in the operation of the butchery. The invoice and VAT treatment further supported this conclusion. The failure to publish notice as required by section 34(1) rendered the t…
