South Africa Case Law

Georgiou N.O and Another v Poole and Another (A143/2024 ; 2566/2021)

Georgiou N.O and Another v Poole and Another (A143/2024 ; 2566/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 738 (21 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A143/2024 ; 2566/2021

Judges

M J Teffo, M Motha, M M D Lenyai

The court held that the Trust, as heir and beneficiary, does not acquire ownership of the deceased's assets upon death but only a contingent personal right against the executor, enforceable after confirmation of the liquidation and distribution account. This right is financial, not legal, and does not confer locus standi to intervene in sequestration proceedings. The trustees were inquorate and failed to appoint a third trustee as required by the Trust Deed, further undermining their standing. The court found no merit in the argument that Mr Poole lacked locus standi due to the alleged cessio…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Intervention Application
• Sequestration
• Trust Deed Interpretation
• Business Rescue Plan

Standard Bank of South Africa and Another v Setshabelo Trading 647 (Pty) Ltd and Another (3085/2025)

Standard Bank of South Africa and Another v Setshabelo Trading 647 (Pty) Ltd and Another (3085/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 208 (7 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3085/2025

Judge

Reinders

The High Court held that a business rescue resolution was adopted while liquidation proceedings were still pending, contrary to section 129(2)(a) of the Companies Act.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act Section 129
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Intervention Application
• Business-rescue
• Companies-act-section-129

Jordaan and Another v Le Roux and Others (070088/23)

Jordaan and Another v Le Roux and Others (070088/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 651 (20 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

070088/23

Judge

N L Moila

The High Court confirmed the provisional sequestration of the first respondent, finding acts of insolvency and reason to believe creditors may benefit.

• Final Sequestration
• Act Of Insolvency
• Creditor Claims
• Intervention Application
• Ponzi Scheme Liability
• Final-sequestration

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211)

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211) [2025] ZAGPPHC 715 (18 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/031211

Judge

de Vos

The Court found that Mr Koko failed to establish a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter or order of the review proceedings. The order and judgment made no reference to him, imposed no obligations, and did not affect his rights. The authorities cited, including NDPP v Zuma, B Xulu & Partners, Central Energy Fund, Siyangena Technologies, Deputy Public Protector, and Lebea, confirm that reputational harm or adverse allegations in the reasoning do not suffice for intervention. The order operates in rem, binding all parties, but does not entitle uncited parties to intervene…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Order In Rem
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Reputational Harm
• Costs Order

Liberty Fighters Network and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (46591/2021)

Liberty Fighters Network and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (46591/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 535 (29 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46591/2021

Judge

Van Aswegen

The applicants failed to establish a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings, as required by Rule 12. Their interest arises from their broader campaign against banking practices and advocacy for reform in legal representation, not from any legal right affected by the breach of the loan agreement at issue. The third respondent did not raise any complaint regarding legal representation and chose to conduct her own defence. The constitutional issues raised by the applicants were not properly canvassed in the summary judgment proceedings and were not accompanied b…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Legal Representation
• Rule 12 Uniform Rules
• Section 38 Constitution
• Rule 16a Uniform Rules

Pretorius and Others v Khutso Naketsi Communal Property Association and Another (2024-147172)

Pretorius and Others v Khutso Naketsi Communal Property Association and Another (2024-147172) [2025] ZAGPPHC 451 (8 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-147172

Judge

HF Oosthuizen

The High Court granted a postponement in winding-up proceedings and ordered the intervening applicants, except the employees, to pay the postponed hearing costs.

• Winding Up Of Company
• Intervention Application
• Costs Order
• Just And Equitable Ground
• Minority Shareholder Rights
• Winding-up

South African Forestry Company SOC Limited v Boruchowitz N.O and Another (033595/2022)

South African Forestry Company SOC Limited v Boruchowitz N.O and Another (033595/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 314 (24 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

033595/2022

Judge

JM Berger

The court found that Hakhensa Consulting CC demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the main review application, both as cessionary under the deed of cession and as a contractual beneficiary under the addendum to the memorandum of understanding. Clause 18.2 of the services agreement did not clearly prohibit cession of the right to receive payment, and even if it did, any refusal of consent by SAFCOL would have been unreasonable given the circumstances. The court held that Hakhensa's rights would be adversely affected if the relief sought by SAFCOL in the review were g…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Cession
• Contractual Rights
• Pactum De Non Cedendo
• Arbitration Award

Appel and Others v Democratic Alliance and Another (19623/2024)

Appel and Others v Democratic Alliance and Another (19623/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 26 (4 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19623/2024

Judge

Lekhuleni

The High Court dismissed an urgent application by councillors to intervene and seek leave to appeal, finding the delay self-created and the appeal request out of time.

• Intervention Application
• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Municipal Council Powers
• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation For Late Appeal
• Intervention-application

Mutual Heights Body Corporate v Red Socks Investments (Pty) Ltd (Golden Loop Trading 21 CC Intervening) (15610/2023)

Mutual Heights Body Corporate v Red Socks Investments (Pty) Ltd (Golden Loop Trading 21 CC Intervening) (15610/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 13 (17 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15610/2023

Judge

Mangcu-Lockwood

The court found that the payment of R3 190 000 by Kleynhans, whether in his personal capacity or via Golden Loop, did not extinguish the applicant's claim nor demonstrate Red Socks' solvency. The payment was made after the provisional liquidation order and without the involvement of the provisional liquidator, failing to protect the interests of other creditors and the liquidator. The applicant remains a prospective creditor for recurrent levies, and Red Socks' repeated failure to pay debts, lack of financial disclosure, and existence of other creditors support a finding of commercial insolve…

Source excerpt

• Company Liquidation
• Sectional Title Debt
• Intervention Application
• Locus Standi
• Concursus Creditorum

Isaac v Isaac and Others (D6418/2022)

Isaac v Isaac and Others (D6418/2022) [2025] ZAKZDHC 2 (14 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6418/2022

Judge

Bond

The court granted Logashini Isaac leave to intervene in pending nuisance litigation, held she had a direct and substantial interest, and allowed her affidavit to stand as supplementary evidence.

• Intervention Application
• Locus Standi
• Abatement Of Nuisance
• Civil-procedure
• Intervention-application
• Locus-standi