South Africa Case Law

Meropa Leisure and Entertainment (Pty) Ltd t/a Sun Meropa v Rejasimano Trading (Pty) Ltd t/a Marimba Restaurant and Another (08060/2025)

Meropa Leisure and Entertainment (Pty) Ltd t/a Sun Meropa v Rejasimano Trading (Pty) Ltd t/a Marimba Restaurant and Another (08060/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 105 (2 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

08060/2025

Judge

Van Wyk ASL

The High Court set aside an ex parte interim order after finding the respondents had not made full and frank disclosure and had not shown exceptional urgency.

• Ex Parte Applications
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Uberrima Fides
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Rescission Of Order
• Ex-parte-applications

Ramatsekisa v Special Investigating Unit and Others (GP21/2023)

Ramatsekisa v Special Investigating Unit and Others (GP21/2023) [2025] ZAST 7 (17 March 2025)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP21/2023

Judge

M Victor

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide full and frank disclosure of his financial situation, including details of income from rental properties and proceeds from property sales, and showed reluctance to sell assets to meet expenses. The legislative framework, when interpreted harmoniously, empowers the Tribunal to grant interdictory relief to protect state assets, and the rules do not override the SIU Act. The applicant did not meet the requirements for release of preserved funds under rule 23(10), as he did not disclose all interests in property subject to the preservation o…

Source excerpt

• Preservation Order
• Release Of Preserved Funds
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Ranking Of Creditors
• Statutory Interpretation
• Pension Fund Deductions

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (PTY) Limited v Berlex 96 CC (2022/17020)

Merchant Commercial Finance 1 (PTY) Limited v Berlex 96 CC (2022/17020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 205; [2025] 2 All SA 570 (GJ) (3 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/17020

Judge

D Marais

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for ex parte relief, as the urgency and imminent liquidation were based on unsubstantiated allegations and conjecture. The applicant did not provide documentary or credible evidence of threats of liquidation by other creditors, nor did it justify deviation from normal court procedures. The applicant also failed in its duty of full and frank disclosure by not informing the court of the prior order, the subsequent return of assets to the respondent, and its lack of entitlement to enforce unregistered bonds. These non-disclosures were…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Orders
• Perfecting Notarial Bonds
• Parate Executie
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Urgent Applications
• Suretyship Liability

CVS v SV (18688/2022)

CVS v SV (18688/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 340 (25 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18688/2022

Judge

Lekhuleni

Rule 43(6) maintenance variation dismissed: the court found no material change, inadequate disclosure of assets, and held the children’s needs came first.

• Maintenance Variation
• Rule 43 Procedure
• Best Interests Of Child
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Maintenance-variation
• Rule-43

Maritz; Ex Parte Le Roux (M472/2023; M583/2023), Ex parte

Maritz; Ex Parte Le Roux (M472/2023; M583/2023), Ex parte [2024] ZANWHC 127 (2 May 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M472/2023; M583/2023

Judge

Petersen

The court found that both applicants failed to make a full and frank disclosure of material facts regarding their financial positions and the nature of their debts. The applications did not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate that the surrender of their estates would be to the advantage of creditors, as required by the Insolvency Act. The court emphasized that voluntary surrender is a remedy of last resort and is intended to benefit creditors, not merely to relieve debtors of their obligations. The lack of creditor participation and absence of detailed evidence undermined the applicants'…

Source excerpt

• Voluntary Surrender
• Insolvency Act Section 4 And 6
• Advantage To Creditors
• Full And Frank Disclosure

De Villiers and Another (M108/2023), Ex parte

De Villiers and Another (M108/2023), Ex parte [2024] ZANWHC 29; [2024] 2 All SA 67 (NWM) (9 February 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M108/2023

Judge

Petersen

The High Court refused rehabilitation of a joint insolvent estate after finding a questionable cession and withdrawal of the only proved claim, and inadequate disclosure.

• Rehabilitation Of Insolvent Estate
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Creditor Contribution Liability
• Sequestration Advantage To Creditors
• Contrived Cession Agreement
• Rehabilitation-of-insolvent-estate

Z.G v J.G.C.G (77979/2018)

Z.G v J.G.C.G (77979/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 18 (12 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

77979/2018

Judge

C Marumoagae

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in her financial circumstances since the previous contribution order, as required by Rule 43(6). She did not provide full and frank disclosure of her financial position, particularly regarding income from her businesses and the use of her mother’s bank account. The evidence suggested that the applicant, as a businesswoman with profitable enterprises, could pay her legal fees from her own resources. The court found no justification to order the respondent to contribute further to the applicant’s legal costs, including th…

Source excerpt

• Contribution To Costs
• Rule 43 Applications
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Matrimonial Property Regime
• Interim Relief
• Gender Equality In Divorce

B.W.H v S.A.H (22802/2021)

B.W.H v S.A.H (22802/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1348 (21 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22802/2021

Judge

Nkutha-Nkontwana

The High Court varied a Rule 43 order only to remove spousal maintenance, finding the respondent had not fully disclosed finances and was self-supporting.

• Spousal Maintenance
• Variation Of Rule 43 Order
• Material Change In Circumstances
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Retrospective Orders
• Rule-43

Groenewald (M377/2022), Ex parte

Groenewald (M377/2022), Ex parte [2023] ZANWHC 121 (21 July 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M377/2022

Judge

A H Petersen

The High Court dismissed an ex parte application for voluntary surrender after finding the applicant had not shown sufficient facts or creditor advantage.

• Voluntary Surrender Of Estate
• Advantage To Creditors
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Debt Review
• Sequestration Costs
• Voluntary-surrender-of-estate

Process Design & Automation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gamede (41905/2020)

Process Design & Automation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Gamede (41905/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 157 (24 May 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41905/2020

Judge

VM Movshovich

The court found that Mr Gamede's ex parte application was materially deficient due to substantial non-disclosure of relevant facts, including the existence and outcome of the prior Pretoria application and the applicants' defences. The respondent's failure to make proper enquiries and to set out these matters on oath constituted an abuse of process. The court held that the interim interdict prejudiced at least one applicant and that the respondent's conduct in both procuring the ex parte order and opposing the reconsideration application was vexatious. Accordingly, the ex parte order was reco…

Source excerpt

• Ex Parte Interdict
• Full And Frank Disclosure
• Res Judicata
• Shareholder Rights
• Punitive Costs