South Africa Case Law

Cooper N.O and Others v Blue Label Distributions (2022/5762)

Cooper N.O and Others v Blue Label Distributions (2022/5762) [2024] ZAGPJHC 615; [2024] 3 All SA 800 (GJ) (2 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/5762

Judge

Maier-Frawley

The court found that the payments made by CBP to Blue Label after provisional liquidation were not ring-fenced for suppliers and were deposited into Blue Label's general bank account, over which Blue Label had sole disposal rights. Blue Label benefitted from the payments by earning commission and improving its position, thus it was not a mere conduit. The payments constituted void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act, as they were made after the establishment of the concursus creditorum and preferred Blue Label above other creditors. The court held that the liquidators were…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Void Dispositions
• Concursus Creditorum
• Preferential Payments
• Companies Act Section 341
• Insolvency Act Interpretation

Cohen v Absa Bank Limited (1280/2021)

Cohen v Absa Bank Limited (1280/2021) [2024] ZASCA 16 (9 February 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1280/2021

Judges

Mocumie, Nicholls, Meyer, Chetty, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 31(2) of the Insolvency Act does not give a surety standing to escape liability after the principal debtor’s liquidation.

• Suretyship Liability
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Collusive Disposition
• Locus Standi
• Condonation
• Appeal Struck Off Roll

Bester N.O and Others v Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) t/a MTI - Leave to Appeal (15426/2021)

Bester N.O and Others v Mirror Trading International (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) t/a MTI - Leave to Appeal (15426/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 217 (18 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15426/2021

Judge

A De Wet

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no real factual dispute and no reasonable prospect of success in challenges to MTI-related declaratory relief.

• Cryptocurrency Regulation
• Leave To Appeal Standard
• Declaratory Relief
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Jurisdiction
• Pyramid Scheme Prohibition

Liberty Group Limited v Moosa (126/2021)

Liberty Group Limited v Moosa (126/2021) [2023] ZASCA 52; 2023 (5) SA 126 (SCA) (14 April 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

126/2021

Judges

Ponnan, Mbatha, Mothle, Meyer, Molefe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order dismissing an application for provisional sequestration is not an 'order made by the court in terms of the Insolvency Act' as contemplated by section 150(5), and is therefore appealable. The court reasoned that the statutory language is ambiguous and should be interpreted in a manner consistent with constitutional principles and the general rule that dismissals of applications are appealable. The court found that previous authorities, including Bhamjee and Gottschalk, were unreasoned and led to anomalies, such as the appealability of similar orde…

Source excerpt

• Appealability Of Orders
• Provisional Sequestration
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Advantage To Creditors

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) [2023] ZAGPJHC 201 (5 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21746/2019

Judge

I Opperman

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and holding that the applicants had not shown the factual findings were wrong.

• Leave To Appeal
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Factual Findings
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Leave-to-appeal
• Reasonable-prospects-of-success

FirstRand Bank Limited v Master of the High Court (Pretoria) and Others (1120/19)

FirstRand Bank Limited v Master of the High Court (Pretoria) and Others (1120/19) [2021] ZASCA 33; 2021 (4) SA 115 (SCA) (7 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1120/19

Judges

Wallis, Saldulker, Dlodlo, Goosen, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, where free residue is insufficient, the petitioning creditor is solely liable for sequestration costs under the Insolvency Act.

• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Creditor Contribution Liability
• Sectional Titles Act Application
• Costs Of Sequestration
• Insolvency-act-interpretation
• Sequestration-costs

Mnisi v Nedbank Ltd and Another ; In re: Nedbank Ltd v Mnisi (31005/2019)

Mnisi v Nedbank Ltd and Another ; In re: Nedbank Ltd v Mnisi (31005/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 557 (9 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31005/2019

Judge

Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to stay execution of a sequestration order pending appeal, holding that trustees may take possession of the estate assets.

• Sequestration Order
• Stay Of Execution
• Powers Of Provisional Trustees
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Insolvency
• Sequestration

Odendaal v Nomoredebt Trust and Others (63675/2018)

Odendaal v Nomoredebt Trust and Others (63675/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 36 (8 February 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63675/2018

Judge

Stoop

The court held that while a trust is susceptible to sequestration as a debtor in the usual sense of the word, legal proceedings must cite the trustees in their representative capacities, not the trust itself. The applicant failed to correct the citation and did not seek relief against the trustees in their representative capacities. As a result, the applicant was not entitled to final relief, and the provisional sequestration order was discharged.

Source excerpt

• Sequestration Of Trust
• Citation Of Trustees
• Insolvency Act Interpretation

First Rand Bank Limited v Master of the High Court (Pretoria) and Others (53071/2016)

First Rand Bank Limited v Master of the High Court (Pretoria) and Others (53071/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 806 (18 April 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53071/2016

Judge

T D Vilakazi

The court found that the Master erred in conflating sequestration costs with costs for recovery of arrear levies. Section 14(3) of the Insolvency Act compels the petitioning creditor to contribute to administration costs, regardless of whether a claim has been proved. Section 89(1) and section 106 further require pro rata contribution by creditors when the estate's residue is insufficient. The legal costs incurred in sequestration are not protected under section 15B(3)(a)(i)(aa) of the Sectional Title Act, which only covers unpaid levies. The Body Corporate, as petitioning creditor, is not im…

Source excerpt

• Liquidation Distribution Account
• Sectional Title Act
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Creditor Contribution
• Administrative Action Review
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Eastern Cape Development Corporation v Master of the High Court, Port Elizabeth and Others (3203/2016)

Eastern Cape Development Corporation v Master of the High Court, Port Elizabeth and Others (3203/2016) [2017] ZAECPEHC 23 (28 March 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3203/2016

Judge

S M Mbenenge

The High Court set aside subpoenas issued in liquidation proceedings, holding that the creditors’ interrogation process could not be used to relitigate a proved claim without section 45(3) compliance.

• Liquidation Procedure
• Proof Of Claims
• Creditor Interrogation
• Abuse Of Process
• Insolvency Act Interpretation
• Insolvency-law