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
Maree and Another v Kayinja and Others (2019/28191) [2025] ZAGPJHC 751 (31 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application and declared that a voluntary surrender order had sequestrated the Kayiwas’ joint estate.
Seima N.O and Others v Master of High Court Johannesburg and Others (2022/045994) [2025] ZAGPJHC 686 (7 July 2025)
The High Court confirmed a rule nisi and ordered Samnakay Attorneys to pay punitive costs for advancing false, defamatory and unsupported allegations against trustees.
Kok v Hill N.O and Others (2024/031287) [2025] ZAGPJHC 492 (20 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a review aimed at overturning trustees’ repudiation of a property sale after insolvency, finding no procedural irregularity and no vulnerable purchaser status.
Rayal Industrial (Pty) Ltd v Khan (076126/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 500 (13 May 2025)
The court found that the respondent’s late answering affidavit should be condoned in the interests of justice, as the applicant was not severely prejudiced and had filed a replying affidavit. On the merits, the applicant established a prima facie claim for a liquidated amount exceeding R90 million, supported by unchallenged evidence of fraudulent misappropriation by the respondent. The respondent’s defence consisted of blanket denials and unsupported allegations regarding the applicant’s deponent, which were rejected for lack of evidence and credibility. The respondent admitted participation…
Source excerpt
Van Vuuren v Van Den Heever N.O and Others (2023-084243) [2025] ZAGPPHC 174 (26 February 2025)
High Court discovery ruling partially granting a pre-plea document request under rule 35(14) in litigation arising from allegations of a Ponzi-type scheme.
Le Roux v Van der Westhuizen N.O. and Others (5554/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 60 (20 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying an order for security for costs against the respondents, who are liquidators acting in the discharge of their duties. The main action was not shown to be vexatious or an abuse of process. The claims under sections 26 and 31 of the Insolvency Act do not constitute debts for prescription purposes until the court sets aside the relevant transactions. The respondents' claims were instituted within the applicable prescription period, as they only became aware of the facts giving rise to the claims in Octobe…
Source excerpt
TUHF Limited v Farber (2024/066493) [2024] ZAGPJHC 802 (26 August 2024)
TUHF has established, on a prima facie basis, all requirements for a provisional sequestration order under the Insolvency Act. TUHF holds final, unsatisfied monetary claims against Mr. Farber exceeding R14.2 million. Mr. Farber committed an act of insolvency by failing to satisfy the judgment and failing to point out assets to the Sheriff, as evidenced by the Sheriff’s return. The respondent’s denial is insufficient and unsupported by detailed facts. Mr. Farber’s financial affairs are opaque, and there is a reasonable prospect that sequestration will advantage creditors by enabling investigat…
Source excerpt
Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd v Baloyi (2023/043172) [2024] ZAGPJHC 808 (19 August 2024)
The High Court granted provisional sequestration after a nulla bona return and unpaid judgment debt, finding a prima facie act of insolvency and likely benefit to creditors.
Lexshell 824 Investments Proprietary Limited v Wiese (8603/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 691 (19 July 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect of advantage to creditors from the sequestration of the respondent's estate. The respondent's assets and liabilities were transparently disclosed, and there was no evidence of irregular or impeachable transactions that would justify an inquiry likely to uncover further assets. The respondent had made payment arrangements with most creditors and was in salaried employment, suggesting that ongoing repayments would yield a greater benefit to creditors than sequestration. The risk of negligible dividends and potential li…
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
