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
Knoop N.O. and Others v Boardware (Pty) Ltd (AR236/21) [2022] ZAKZPHC 13 (22 April 2022)
The High Court held that a mistaken overpayment to a company in liquidation was not a provable insolvency claim, and ordered direct repayment.
Engen Petroleum Limited v Flotank Transport (Pty) Ltd (1049/2017) [2020] ZANCHC 35 (5 June 2020)
The court dismissed Engen’s claim against Flotank, holding that after Windsharp’s liquidation Engen’s remedy lay against the insolvent estate, not directly against Flotank.
Pio v Essel NO and Others (15353/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 48 (3 May 2019)
The High Court set aside a decision admitting an unliquidated claim at a creditors’ meeting, holding that section 44 did not authorize admission of such a claim.
Masilo N.O and Others v Betterbridge (Pty) Limited (37/2015) [2016] ZASCA 73 (25 May 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the delay in the completion of prescription under section 13(1)(g) of the Prescription Act operates as soon as the claim is admitted to proof at the meeting of creditors, as provided for in section 44 of the Insolvency Act. The court rejected the appellants' argument that withdrawal of the claim before completion of the adjudication process negates the delay in prescription. The court found that the claim was admitted to proof and thus the delay applied. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Source excerpt
Breda NO v The Master of the High Court, Kimberley (20537/2014) [2015] ZASCA 166 (26 November 2015)
The SCA upheld provisional admission of a creditor’s claim in an insolvent estate, holding that prescription was for the trustees to assess and the affidavit was valid.
African National Congress v Steenkamp N.O and Others (12036/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 80 (30 May 2014)
The High Court dismissed an application to expunge a proven insolvency claim, holding the applicant lacked locus standi and the claim complied with section 44(4).
Explore more
