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
Steyn v Steyn N.O and Others (35958/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 44; 2024 (4) SA 285 (GP) (10 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed a sequestration application against a family trust, finding the trustee-applicant acted self-servingly and failed to prove insolvency.
Amod v Joosub [2023] ZAGPPHC 382; 11262/2021 (1 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to reinstate and finalise a provisional sequestration order, finding no sufficient basis or creditor-benefit shown.
Ex Parte: Steers; Ex Parte: Coetzer; Ex Parte: Coetzer; Ex Parte: Lyners, Lessing v Oosthuizen (12167/21;17067/21;14603/21; 9557/21;15530/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 246 (26 November 2021)
The court refused four voluntary surrender applications and one friendly sequestration application for lack of full disclosure, reliable valuations, and proof of creditor advantage.
Eksteen v Van der Merwe (2710/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 131 (2 August 2018)
The court dismissed a friendly sequestration application, finding the applicant had not proved the alleged loan and that sequestration was not to creditors’ advantage.
Hohne v Hohne and Another (603/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 49 (8 June 2018)
Provisional sequestration application dismissed after the court found the alleged loan was a donation and the case was a collusive friendly sequestration.
Botha v Botha (4457/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 194 (17 November 2016)
The High Court dismissed a friendly sequestration application, finding the applicant failed to prove that sequestration would benefit creditors.
Rademeyer & Another v Rademeyer & Another N.O. (8358/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 132 (14 September 2016)
The court held that the applicants, as sole trustees, could not validly institute sequestration proceedings against the trust in both their personal and representative capacities due to a conflict of interest and the principle that a person cannot be both applicant and respondent in adversarial litigation. Even if this procedural defect were overlooked, the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of a liquidated claim against the trust, as the documentation and supporting information were inadequate. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish that sequestration would be to the adv…
Source excerpt
J V Attorneys v L P Vermeulen and Another (10924/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 196 (4 December 2015)
The High Court made final a provisional sequestration order after rejecting the claim that R3.2 million paid to a trust was an asset in the respondent’s estate.
Otto Krause Inc v Brandt and Another (74191/13) [2015] ZAGPPHC 11 (27 January 2015)
High Court sequestration matter: leave to intervene was granted, but the final sequestration order was refused because advantage to creditors was not shown.
Nedbank Ltd (formerly t/a Nedcor Bank Ltd) and Another v Abrahams and Another (1318/2012) [2013] ZAECPEHC 11 (26 February 2013)
The court found that the sequestration application was a 'friendly' one, with the applicant and respondents closely related and the debt being negligible. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that sequestration would benefit creditors, particularly in light of the administration costs and the lack of acceptable evidence regarding the proceeds of a forced sale. Nedbank's intervention was justified, and its calculations regarding costs and asset values were reasonable. The application to strike out portions of Nedbank's affidavit was dismissed, as the allegations were properly ma…
Source excerpt
Explore more
