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
2 court collections
Last checked

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2023] ZAGPPHC 1920

Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Knoop and Others (035371/2023)

Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Knoop and Others (035371/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1920; 2024 (3) SA 181 (GP) (20 November 2023)

The court held that the authority of Van der Merwe and Van der Merwe Attorneys to represent the Second, Fifth, and Sixth Applicants in the removal application was established, as the appointment and removal of business rescue practitioners is a governance function retained by directors and not subject to the authority of BRPs. The Companies Act and relevant case law distinguish between management (under BRP control) and governance (retained by directors). Directors do not require BRP approval to appoint attorneys for governance-related litigation, such as applications for BRP removal. However…

  • Business Rescue
  • Director Powers
  • Authority To Institute Proceedings
  • Removal Of Business Rescue Practitioner
  • Companies Act Section 139
  • Corporate Governance
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2022] ZAGPJHC 22

Ragavan and Others v Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Ltd and Others (52832/2021)

Ragavan and Others v Optimum Coal Terminal (Pty) Ltd and Others (52832/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 22; 2022 (3) SA 512 (GJ) (18 January 2022)

The court held that the Companies Act, specifically Chapter 6, draws a clear distinction between the powers of directors and business rescue practitioners (BRPs) during business rescue proceedings. The Act unequivocally transfers full management control to the BRPs, limiting directors to governance functions that do not extend to external management decisions such as voting at section 151(1) meetings. The BRPs, not the directors, are empowered to vote at such meetings, and there is no statutory requirement for a mandate from an adopted business rescue plan before the BRPs may exercise this ri…

  • Business Rescue
  • Director Powers
  • Creditor Voting Rights
  • Mandate Requirements
  • Companies Act Interpretation
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2017] ZAGPPHC 297

Maroos and Others v GCC Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others (36777/2017)

Maroos and Others v GCC Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others (36777/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 297 (15 June 2017)

The court held that the effect of a business rescue application under section 131(6) of the Companies Act 2008 is to suspend liquidation proceedings, including the powers of provisional liquidators. During this suspension, the assets of the company fall under the control of the Master, but the management powers and authority to conduct the company's affairs re-vest in the director. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of business rescue, which is to allow the company to resume trading and potentially be rescued, and avoids leaving the company without management. The court rejected cont…

  • Business Rescue
  • Liquidation Suspension
  • Director Powers
  • Interim Management
  • Companies Act Interpretation
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.