South Africa Case Law

Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd v Marcus M Farming CC (A191/2023)

Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd v Marcus M Farming CC (A191/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 154 (21 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A191/2023

Judges

Moshoana, Baqwa, Mazibuko

The appellate court found that Marcus M Farming CC was unable to pay its debts, as evidenced by its admitted indebtedness to Tau Roller Meule (Pty) Ltd and failure to settle the debt despite a compromise agreement and partial payments. The respondent's alleged bona fide defence was not supported by reasonable grounds and did not discharge the onus required to resist liquidation. The court held that interlocutory applications, including those based on lis pendens, irregular step proceedings, and abuse of process, were without merit and dismissed them. The court refused to admit further evidenc…

Source excerpt

• Final Liquidation Order
• Companies Act Section 344
• Inability To Pay Debts
• Bona Fide Defence
• Judicial Discretion On Liquidation
• Admission Of Evidence On Appeal

Pillay v Macsilla Holdings and Others (15169/2021)

Pillay v Macsilla Holdings and Others (15169/2021) [2021] ZAGPJHC 476 (27 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15169/2021

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The High Court granted a final winding-up order against Macsilla Holdings after rejecting a challenge based on Legal Practice Act s 86 and finding the company insolvent.

• Winding Up Of Company
• Creditor Claim
• Trust Account Regulation
• Final Liquidation Order
• Company-winding-up
• Creditor-claims

Nedbank Limited v Zara Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (1681/2020)

Nedbank Limited v Zara Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (1681/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 204 (10 November 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1681/2020

Judge

Opperman, J

The High Court granted Nedbank a final liquidation order against Zara Boerdery (Pty) Ltd after finding the company commercially insolvent and unable to show a credible repayment plan.

• Company Liquidation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Creditor Rights
• Final Liquidation Order
• Company-liquidation
• Commercial-insolvency

Dinath N.O and Others v Mukhawana & Mukhawana Suplly & Logistics (Pty) Ltd (27679/2018)

Dinath N.O and Others v Mukhawana & Mukhawana Suplly & Logistics (Pty) Ltd (27679/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1065 (28 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

27679/2018

Judge

Neukircher

The High Court granted a final liquidation order against the respondent, finding the opposition unauthorised, service compliant, and the company commercially insolvent.

• Final Liquidation Order
• Director Disqualification
• Fraudulent Transactions
• Commercial Insolvency
• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Liquidation

Wylie N.O v Megaplan Konstruksie CC (75172/2013)

Wylie N.O v Megaplan Konstruksie CC (75172/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 649 (31 August 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

75172/2013

Judge

M W Msimeki

The court confirmed a provisional liquidation order and granted final winding-up, holding that business rescue does not bar the making of a final liquidation order.

• Final Liquidation Order
• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Companies Act Section 131 6
• Business-rescue
• Liquidation
• Companies-act-section-131-6

Absa Bank Limited v Jeff & Braam Truck Parts CC (41288/2014)

Absa Bank Limited v Jeff & Braam Truck Parts CC (41288/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 410 (14 May 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

41288/2014

Judge

Avvakoumides

The respondent did not dispute its indebtedness to the applicant on bona fide and reasonable grounds. The applicant complied with section 346(4A) of the Companies Act 1973, as the requirement is to furnish application papers to specified persons after lodging with the Registrar and before a final order is granted. The respondent's submissions regarding business rescue and the economic climate do not constitute valid grounds to oppose liquidation. The distinction between commercial and factual insolvency is settled: commercial insolvency justifies liquidation under the old Act. Given the respo…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Commercial Insolvency
• Section 346 4a Compliance
• Final Liquidation Order

Consolidated Aone Trade And Invest 6 (Proprietary) Limited and Another v Firstrand Bank and Another (1360/2013)

Consolidated Aone Trade And Invest 6 (Proprietary) Limited and Another v Firstrand Bank and Another (1360/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 50 (11 July 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1360/2013

Judge

Marks

The court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a final liquidation order, holding that the second business rescue application did not suspend liquidation.

• Business Rescue
• Final Liquidation Order
• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal
• Business-rescue

Richter v Bloempro CC and Others (69531/2012)

Richter v Bloempro CC and Others (69531/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 120; 2014 (6) SA 38 (GP) (14 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69531/2012

Judge

BAM

The court held that while the applicant may technically remain an affected person under the Companies Act due to the suspension, not termination, of his employment contract, the business rescue application cannot succeed after a final liquidation order has been granted. The legislative intent, as interpreted from the Companies Act, is that business rescue is available only before a final liquidation order. Once final liquidation is ordered, the company loses its legal standing and cannot be placed under business rescue. The court also found that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the busines…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Final Liquidation Order
• Affected Person Status
• Jurisdiction
• Conversion Of Proceedings

Dolphin Ridge Body Corporate v Express Model Trading 289 CC (3506/2010)

Dolphin Ridge Body Corporate v Express Model Trading 289 CC (3506/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 396 (22 February 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3506/2010

Judge

Dolamo

The court found that the applicant retained locus standi as a contingent creditor, since interest remained unpaid and a vinculum juris existed. The Section 69(1) notice was valid for the amount admitted as due, and the respondent's failure to pay, secure, or compound the debt triggered the deeming provisions of the Close Corporation Act. The respondent's defences and counterclaims were rejected; levies cannot be withheld due to alleged non-performance, and insurance payments had been properly credited. The respondent was found to be commercially insolvent, unable to meet monthly financial com…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Liquidation
• Final Liquidation Order
• Sectional Titles Act
• Close Corporation Act
• Commercial Insolvency

ABSA Bank v Relmar Investments (26514/2010)

ABSA Bank v Relmar Investments (26514/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 479 (27 October 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

26514/2010

Judge

Henney R

The Western Cape High Court granted ABSA Bank a final liquidation order against Relmar Investments, finding it unable to pay its debts and without a valid defence.

• Company Liquidation
• Final Liquidation Order
• Creditor Inability To Pay
• Opposition To Liquidation
• Company-liquidation
• Final-liquidation-order