South Africa Case Law

Bester N.O and Others v Maas N.O and Another (2025-071547)

Bester N.O and Others v Maas N.O and Another (2025-071547) [2025] ZAGPPHC 726 (17 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-071547

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court found that the applicants failed to provide objective evidence of ongoing dissipation of the Trust's assets and did not adequately explain the delay in launching the urgent application. The urgency was deemed self-created, as the applicants had knowledge of the Trust's identity since 2023 but only instituted urgent proceedings in 2025, despite already having pending action proceedings for the same relief. The applicants did not demonstrate that they would be unable to obtain substantial redress in due course. Consequently, the court declined to hear the matter as urgent and struck i…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sequestration
• Urgent Application
• Impeachable Disposition
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Locus Standi
• Lis Pendens

Maas N.O and Another v Bester N.O and Others (006981/24)

Maas N.O and Another v Bester N.O and Others (006981/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 218 (10 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

006981/24

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim based on section 26 of the Insolvency Act, finding the pleadings could sustain a statutory claim.

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Ponzi Scheme Liquidation
• Joinder Of Alternative Plaintiffs
• Exception-to-particulars-of-claim
• Insolvency-act-section-26

Dinath and Another v Iginla and Another (079671/2023)

Dinath and Another v Iginla and Another (079671/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1225 (22 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

079671/2023

Judge

Nharmuravate

The court found that the payments made by Joshua Iginla Ministries NPC to purchase a farm in the First Respondent's name constituted a disposition without value under section 26 of the Insolvency Act. The funds originated from SNS, which operated an unlawful Ponzi scheme and was liquidated, making the payments to JIM NPC impeachable and due for repayment to SNS's liquidators. The Respondents failed to provide any evidence that JIM NPC was solvent at the time of the disposition or that value was received in exchange for the payments. The constitutional argument regarding freedom of religion wa…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Disposition Without Value
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Collusive Transactions
• Church Donations
• Creditor Protection

Bester N.O and Others v Vosloo (1497/2024)

Bester N.O and Others v Vosloo (1497/2024) [2024] ZAECQBHC 72 (6 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1497/2024

Judge

Mullins

The High Court granted summary judgment to liquidators recovering unlawful scheme payouts, rejecting prescription, locus standi, and procedural objections.

• Summary Judgment
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Prescription Act Section 12
• Liquidation
• Unlawful Pyramid Scheme
• Summary-judgment

Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Symes and Others (2019/34782)

Auto and Truck Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Symes and Others (2019/34782) [2024] ZAGPJHC 425 (2 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/34782

Judge

RJ Moultrie

The court held that the defendant may not amend its plea to deny that the pleaded payments were made to it, as this would contradict its own factual averments and documentary evidence. However, the defendant may amend its plea to clarify that it did not receive or benefit from the payments, as no binding admission to the contrary was made in the pleadings. The withdrawal of the pre-trial admission regarding the plaintiffs' status as joint liquidators and the company's winding up is refused, as the defendant provided no explanation for the withdrawal and such admissions are binding unless spec…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Pleading Amendment
• Withdrawal Of Admission
• Liquidation
• Dispositions Without Value

Pollock N.O and Others v Makhavhu (1812/2022)

Pollock N.O and Others v Makhavhu (1812/2022) [2024] ZALMPTHC 14 (16 February 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

1812/2022

Judge

IM Khosa

The High Court set aside 38 payments from insolvent Vele Investments to Paul Makhavhu as dispositions without value, refused postponement, and dismissed a non-joinder objection.

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Dispositions Without Value
• Liquidation
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Postponement
• Non Joinder

Bailey N.O. and Another v Enderstein Van Der Merwe Inc (9400/2022)

Bailey N.O. and Another v Enderstein Van Der Merwe Inc (9400/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 251 (12 October 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9400/2022

Judge

Mantame

The High Court set aside payments by the insolvent Laumas Trust to attorneys for legal fees incurred by Mr Massyn and related entities under section 26(1)(b).

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Disposition Without Value
• Trust Liability
• Preferent Creditors
• Ponzi Scheme Liquidation
• Insolvency-act-section-26

Strydom N.O and Others v Le Roux - Reasons (2613/2022)

Strydom N.O and Others v Le Roux - Reasons (2613/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 244 (15 September 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2613/2022

Judge

Kusevitsky

Liquidators sought repayment of alleged dispositions without value from an investor. The court refused relief under section 26(1) but granted the alternative section 29 claim.

• Company Liquidation
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Insolvency Act Section 29
• Illegal Investment Scheme
• Company-liquidation
• Insolvency-act-section-26

Van Wyk Van Heerden Attorneys v Gore N.O and Another (828/2021)

Van Wyk Van Heerden Attorneys v Gore N.O and Another (828/2021) [2022] ZASCA 128; [2022] 4 All SA 649 (SCA); 2023 (1) SA 80 (SCA) (30 September 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

828/2021

Judges

Van der Merwe, Makgoka, Gorven, Goosen, Masipa

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a deposit into an attorney’s trust account is only impeachable under s 26(1)(b) if the attorney benefited.

• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Attorneys Trust Accounts
• Dispositions Without Value
• Onus Of Proof
• Companies Act Section 340
• Benefit Requirement

Stewart N.O and Others v Pillary N.O and Another (8855/2017P)

Stewart N.O and Others v Pillary N.O and Another (8855/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 49 (16 September 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8855/2017P

Judge

Khallil

The High Court set aside 101 payments made by Carmol Distributors to a trust as voidable dispositions and ordered repayment with interest and costs.

• Voidable Dispositions
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Ponzi Scheme
• Banking Regulation
• Trust Liability
• Burden Of Proof