Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Jordaan and Another v Le Roux and Others (070088/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 651 (20 June 2025)
The High Court confirmed the provisional sequestration of the first respondent, finding acts of insolvency and reason to believe creditors may benefit.
UMK Property Developers (Pty) Ltd v Rabie and Another (083931/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 567 (9 June 2025)
The Court found that the first respondent had multiple opportunities to oppose the sequestration application or to apply for rescission of the default judgment but failed to act with the required urgency or seriousness. The request for postponement was not supported by a satisfactory explanation, and the purported rescission application was not properly issued. The Court held that a rescission application does not suspend execution of an order unless a specific application for suspension is made. The interests of justice did not warrant further indulgence to the first respondent, and the appl…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate Chateaux Marie v Shumba (044880/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 644 (9 June 2025)
The High Court confirmed a provisional sequestration order against a body corporate debtor, finding acts of insolvency and an advantage to creditors.
E.K v P.K (079672/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 511 (15 March 2025)
The High Court granted final sequestration, finding the respondent insolvent, in default of judgment debts, and that sequestration could benefit creditors.
Land & Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Nagel N.O and Another (UM211/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 13 (24 January 2025)
The High Court confirmed a provisional sequestration order over the JR Family Trust, rejecting the respondents’ reliance on a proposed rescission application.
Aveng Africa (Pty) Ltd v Chiedza (2023/014909) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1178 (22 November 2024)
The court found that the respondent's liability as surety was not discharged by the sale of his shareholding in the principal debtor. The judgment debt was obtained against the respondent in his personal capacity and remains unchallenged. The respondent committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment debt and failing to indicate disposable property to the sheriff, resulting in a nulla bona return. The respondent's arguments regarding the transfer of liability and alleged solvency were rejected as legally unfounded and unsupported by the facts. The court held that the require…
Source excerpt
Small Enterprise Finance Agency SOC Ltd v Notley (2927/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 357 (14 November 2024)
The High Court granted final sequestration, finding jurisdiction in Bloemfontein, an act of insolvency, and a reasonable prospect of advantage to creditors.
Majiedt N.O and Another v Dippenaar N.O and Others (3815/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 117 (24 October 2024)
The High Court granted final sequestration of the MD Trust, holding that the applicants had authority, a liquidated claim, and proof of insolvency and creditor advantage.
Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd v Mogodi (17233/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 662 (16 July 2024)
The respondent failed to discharge the evidentiary burden to show that the provisional sequestration order should be resisted on bona fide and reasonable grounds. Her opposition was based solely on the pending rescission application, which was subsequently dismissed with costs, confirming the validity of the applicant's claim. The respondent's financial position, including the nulla bona return and inability to satisfy the judgment debt, supports the applicant's case for final sequestration. The requirements of the Insolvency Act have been met, and there is no reason to discharge the provisio…
Source excerpt
Eamonn Courtney v Izak Johannes Boshoff NO and Others (483/2023) [2024] ZASCA 104 (12 June 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the final sequestration order granted against Mr Courtney, although not preceded by a provisional order, was not a nullity. The error was procedural and did not render the order void ab initio, as the court was empowered to grant sequestration orders. The appellant, having been properly served and notified, elected not to participate and put up no defence, and his absence cannot be used as a ground for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or the common law. The order remains valid until set aside by a competent court. The appellant failed to establish any groun…
Source excerpt
Explore more
