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
Ramloutan v Kalianujee NO and Another (A5024/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 543 (10 June 2019)
The High Court held that a provisional sequestration order creates a concursus creditorum, rendering later transfer of attached immovable property unlawful.
Nkosi v Van's Auctioneer and Another (9725/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 367 (21 June 2017)
The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict by an unrehabilitated insolvent to stop sale of estate property, finding fatal non-joinder and no suspension of execution.
Deoraj and Another v Maharaj N.O. and Others (1041/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 29 (27 March 2015)
The court upheld an exception to particulars of claim in a property sale-in-execution dispute, finding key allegations lacked the necessary supporting facts.
Deoraj and Another v Maharaj N.O. and Others (1041/2014) [2014] ZAKZDHC 2 (28 February 2014)
The applicants, as execution purchasers, have established a prima facie prospective right to seek a court direction under s 20(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act for transfer of the property. The evidence shows that the only asset in the insolvent estate is the immovable property and that the bondholder is the sole secured creditor who will benefit from any sale, whether by execution or otherwise. The applicants have expended significant sums on the property and will suffer irreparable harm and hardship if the property is alienated before their rights are determined. The balance of convenience favou…
Source excerpt
Fourie N.O. And Another v Edkins (740/12) [2013] ZASCA 117; 2013 (6) SA 576 (SCA) (19 September 2013)
The SCA held that a purchaser of immovable property sold in execution had to show exceptional circumstances to justify transfer after supervening sequestration.
Warricker NO and Another v Senekal (27484/2004) [2006] ZAGPHC 134 (13 October 2006)
The court held that the trustees of the insolvent estate did not succeed to the rights of the Sheriff under the agreement of sale in execution. The suretyship clause was in favour of the Sheriff, who acted as principal in the sale, and not in favour of the trustees. Upon sequestration, section 20(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act required the Sheriff to stay execution and precluded him from passing transfer or claiming the purchase price unless a court ordered otherwise. The trustees’ authority from the Master under section 80bis and section 18(3) did not enable them to enforce the agreement conclu…
Source excerpt
Explore more
