South Africa Case Law

Consolidated Aone Trade and Invest 6 Proprietary Limited v Master of the High Court, KwaZulu-Natal Local Division Durban and Others (12054/2016)

Consolidated Aone Trade and Invest 6 Proprietary Limited v Master of the High Court, KwaZulu-Natal Local Division Durban and Others (12054/2016) [2024] ZAKZDHC 7 (26 January 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

12054/2016

Judge

M E Nkosi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for its failure to bring the review application within the prescribed 180-day period, as the delay was only one day and condonation was justified in the interests of justice. The Master's decision to expunge the applicant's Claims No. 4 and No. 5 was reviewed and set aside, as the Master failed to provide reasons for his decision, triggering the presumption under section 5(3) of PAJA that the action was taken without good reason. The intervening parties' arguments regarding cession, prescription, and alleged breach of contra…

Source excerpt

• Expungement Of Claims
• Judicial Review
• Condonation
• Unjust Enrichment
• Cession In Securitatem Debiti
• Prescription

Standard Bank Of South Africa Limited v Master Of The High Court, Johannesburg and Others (012167/2022)

Standard Bank Of South Africa Limited v Master Of The High Court, Johannesburg and Others (012167/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 981 (1 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

012167/2022

Judge

Twala M L

The court found that the Master failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of section 45(3) of the Insolvency Act and section 407 of the Companies Act. The liquidators did not properly lodge a dispute in writing nor provide reasons for disputing the applicant's proven claim. The Master, as an administrative authority, was obliged to furnish adequate reasons for expunging the claim but failed to do so. The respondents, as creditors, lacked standing to initiate the objection process under section 45(3). The applicant's claim was prima facie proven at a special creditors meeting, and the…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 45
• Companies Act Section 407
• Expungement Of Claims
• Administrative Action
• Cession And Factoring Agreement
• Liquidation Distribution Account

Constantia Insurance Company Limited v The Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others (512/2021)

Constantia Insurance Company Limited v The Master of the High Court, Johannesburg and Others (512/2021) [2022] ZASCA 179; 2023 (5) SA 88 (SCA) (13 December 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

512/2021

Judges

Van der Merwe, Plasket, Basson

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the indemnity provided by Protech Investments to Constantia constituted indirect financial assistance to a related company, Protech Khuthele, within the meaning of section 45(1)(a) of the Companies Act. The board of Protech Investments did not adopt a resolution authorising the indemnity nor did it satisfy itself of the solvency, liquidity, and fairness requirements as required by section 45(3)(b). The only resolution produced was by Protech Holdings, which did not suffice. The requirements not met were substantive, not merely formal or procedural, so sec…

Source excerpt

• Expungement Of Claims
• Financial Assistance
• Board Resolutions
• Solvency And Liquidity Test
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Indemnity Agreements

Wishart and Others v BHP Billiton Coal South Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (162/2016)

Wishart and Others v BHP Billiton Coal South Africa (Pty) Limited and Others (162/2016) [2016] ZASCA 164; [2017] 1 All SA 90 (SCA); 2017 (4) SA 152 (SCA) (16 November 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

162/2016

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Mathopo, Mocumie, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 44(1) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 applies to the proof of claims in the winding-up of companies under the Companies Act 61 of 1973, including the time period for proof and the possibility of late proof with leave of the Master or the court. The provisions of section 366 of the Companies Act are complementary and do not exclude section 44(1). The first exception to the appellants' particulars of claim was therefore wrongly upheld and must be dismissed. Regarding expungement of claims, the court found that the power to expunge a claim is confer…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Proof Of Claims
• Expungement Of Claims
• Late Proof Of Claims
• Master's Powers
• Exceptions To Pleadings

Van Zyl N.O and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town and Another (7892/2015)

Van Zyl N.O and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, Cape Town and Another (7892/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 51 (11 May 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7892/2015

Judge

Riley

The High Court reviewed a Master's refusal to expunge a creditor's claim in liquidation, reduced the claim to R5,610.18, and ordered costs against the creditor.

• Insolvency Act Section 151
• Expungement Of Claims
• Liquidation Procedure
• Proof Of Claim
• Prescription Of Claims
• Interpretation Of Contracts

Muller v Kaplan and Others (33641/2011)

Muller v Kaplan and Others (33641/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 556 (24 July 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33641/2011

Judge

F G Preller

The High Court upheld exceptions to a plaintiff’s particulars of claim against insolvency trustees, finding the claims vague, incomplete, and partly barred by prior orders.

• Trustee Duties In Insolvency
• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Expungement Of Claims
• Damages Against Trustees
• Rehabilitation Of Insolvent
• Cause Of Action Requirements

Van Zyl and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town and Another (25059/2011)

Van Zyl and Others v Master of the High Court of South Africa Western Cape High Court, Cape Town and Another (25059/2011) [2013] ZAWCHC 56; 2013 (5) SA 71 (WCC) (5 April 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25059/2011

Judge

L J Bozalek

The court held that a claim by a creditor against an insolvent estate cannot be rejected solely because it is based on a transaction requiring Treasury approval under Regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations, where such approval has not yet been obtained or refused. The underlying transaction is not void, and Treasury approval may be sought and granted ex post facto. To hold otherwise would produce arbitrary and inequitable results, delivering a windfall to competing creditors and ignoring the possibility of subsequent approval. The principle that the rights of creditors are fr…

Source excerpt

• Expungement Of Claims
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Concursus Creditorum
• Liquidation Procedure
• Enforceability Of Foreign Loans

Akoo and Others v Master of the High Court and Others (5612/11)

Akoo and Others v Master of the High Court and Others (5612/11) [2012] ZAKZPHC 45 (31 July 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5612/11

Judge

D Pillay

Leave to appeal was refused where applicants delayed review and expungement steps and failed to show a clear or prima facie right to block liquidation subpoenas.

• Interim Interdict
• Final Interdict
• Companies Act Section 417
• Privacy Rights
• Administrative Action
• Expungement Of Claims

PG Bison Limited v Johannesburg Glassworks (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (A5050/06)

PG Bison Limited v Johannesburg Glassworks (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others (A5050/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 274; [2008] 1 All SA 473 (W) (16 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A5050/06

Judge

Moshidi

The court found that the appellant was properly notified of the Master's decision to expunge its claim and failed to act within a reasonable time, resulting in an unreasonable delay in seeking review. The presumption of service by registered mail applied, and the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut this. The Master acted within his administrative powers under section 45(3) of the Insolvency Act by expunging the claim, which did not amount to setting aside the underlying disposition. The appellant did not establish grounds such as justus error or fraud to justify reopening t…

Source excerpt

• Expungement Of Claims
• Voidable Dispositions
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Insolvency Act Section 45
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Reopening Liquidation Account

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Master of the High Court and others (535/2005 , 41/2006)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Master of the High Court and others (535/2005 , 41/2006) [2006] ZAECHC 33 (27 July 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

535/2005 , 41/2006

Judges

Liebenberg J, Plasket J

The court held that Standard Bank remained a creditor with locus standi, but could not reopen confirmed liquidation accounts or seek a commission of enquiry.

• Liquidation And Distribution Accounts
• Expungement Of Claims
• Locus Standi
• Commission Of Enquiry
• Creditor Dividends
• Liquidation-and-distribution-accounts