Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2022] ZAGPJHC 897

Van den Heever and Others v RC Christie Incorporated and Others (21746/2019)

Van den Heever and Others v RC Christie Incorporated and Others (21746/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 897 (16 November 2022)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
21746/2019
Judge
I Opperman

The court found that the funds held in Water Africa's attorneys' trust account were the property of Water Africa, not the second and third defendants, as evidenced by correspondence, affidavits, and the purpose of the tender. Payments made from the trust account to the second and third defendants after the final winding-up order were void under the Companies Act and Insolvency Act. The subsequent business rescue order did not alter the legal position, as the winding-up order remained in force and reinstatement restored the status quo ante. Water Africa's attorneys were liable for unauthorised…

Source excerpt

  • Liquidation
  • Trust Account Liability
  • Concursus Creditorum
  • Unauthorised Disposition
  • Companies Act 1973
  • Insolvency Act 1936
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2015] ZASCA 127

Mayo NO v De Montlehu (20504/2014)

Mayo NO v De Montlehu (20504/2014) [2015] ZASCA 127; 2016 (1) SA 36 (SCA) (23 September 2015)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
20504/2014
Judges
Bosielo, Leach, Majiedt, Willis, Zondi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 366(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 does not override the three-month time period and cost requirements stipulated in section 44(1) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. The court found that the strict interpretation of 'mutatis mutandis' requires that the necessary changes must be required, not merely permitted, and that the time period for proving claims and the associated cost requirements apply equally to company liquidations as to sequestrations. Section 366(2) relates only to participation in a distribution under a particular account and does…

Source excerpt

  • Companies Act 1973
  • Insolvency Act 1936
  • Proof Of Claims
  • Late Claims
  • Liquidation Procedure
Read case analysis
Land And Property [2013] ZAGPPHC 545

Land & Agricultural Development Bank of SA v Master of the North Gauteng High Court and Others (60959/2011)

Land & Agricultural Development Bank of SA v Master of the North Gauteng High Court and Others (60959/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 545 (8 April 2013)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
60959/2011
Judge
Tuchten

The court held that the protection conferred by section 102 of the Insolvency Act, 1936, to holders of general notarial bonds is limited to the nett value of the goods encumbered by the bond. Once the bondholder has received the full value of the movables as a secured creditor, no further allocation from the free residue is permissible. The legislative history and case law consistently restrict the preference to the value of the mortgaged movables, and there is no basis for extending preference to proceeds of immovable property or beyond the value of the movables. The interpretation advanced…

Source excerpt

  • Insolvency Act 1936
  • Notarial Bonds
  • Creditor Preference
  • Liquidation Distribution
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.