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
S v Mavimbela and Others (R113/19) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 35; 2021 (1) SACR 145 (MM) (22 April 2020)
Full Bench review holding that Skukuza was duly appointed for regional court sittings and that Judge President directives under section 8(4)(c) were binding.
Employees of Solar Spectrum Trading 83 (Pty) Limited v Afgri Operation Limited and Another (6418/2011, 18624/2011, 66226/2011, 66226/2011, 66226A/11) [2012] ZAGPPHC 359 (16 May 2012)
The court granted business rescue for Solar Spectrum Trading 83 (Pty) Ltd, dismissed provisional judicial management, suspended liquidation, and appointed a practitioner.
Master of the High Court Northern Gauteng High Court, Pretoria v Motala NO and Others (172/11) [2011] ZASCA 238; 2012 (3) SA 325 (SCA) (1 December 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the High Court lacked power to appoint judicial managers, so the earlier order was a nullity and contempt could not stand.
Southern Palace Investments 265 (Pty) Ltd v Midnight Storm Investments 386 (Pt) Ltd (15155/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 442; 2012 (2) SA 423 (WCC) (25 November 2011)
The court dismissed a business rescue application for a distressed company, finding no concrete rescue plan or reasonable prospect of success, and ordered provisional winding-up.
Ex parte: Master of the High Court of South Africa (North Gauteng) (2011 (5) SA 311 (GNP)) [2011] ZAGPPHC 105; 28042/11 (27 June 2011)
The High Court held that only the Master may appoint trustees, liquidators and judicial managers under the insolvency and company statutes.
Swart v Beagles Run Investments 25 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2011 (5) SA 422 (GNP)) [2011] ZAGPPHC 103; 26597/2011 (30 May 2011)
High Court dismissed an urgent business rescue application, finding the company was insolvent and that no reasonable prospect of rescue had been shown.
Motala NO and Others v ITT Financial Corporation (Pty) and Others (50516/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 162 (13 October 2010)
The court held that the Master and Deputy Master were in contempt of the court order of 5 August 2010 by refusing to issue a certificate of appointment to the second respondent and by appointing additional judicial managers contrary to the order. The argument that the order could be ignored due to alleged nullity for lack of jurisdiction was rejected; court orders must be obeyed until set aside. The withdrawal of the judicial management application was granted, as the respondents were dominus litis and entitled to withdraw, and the applicants' opposition was motivated by their desire to retai…
Source excerpt
Griffin v Edwafin Investment Holdings Ltd, Chaplin v griffin and Another; Stapleton and Others v Edwafin Investment Holdings Ltd and Others [2009] ZAKZPHC 20; 1630/2009;366/2009;3656/2009 (22 May 2009)
The court refused judicial management of Edwafin Investment Holdings Ltd, finding the projections too speculative, and granted a provisional winding up order.
Malgas v North-West Star Transport Investments and Another (188/1999) [2006] ZANWHC 32 (11 May 2006)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to sue a company under judicial management, finding the claim prescribed and the procedure wrongly followed.
Unitrans Botswana (Pty) Ltd v North West Transport Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (NW1216/04) [2005] ZANWHC 1 (21 June 2005)
The court held that the considerations relevant to the exercise of its discretion all pointed towards granting Unitrans Botswana (Pty) Ltd leave to proceed with its counterclaim. The absence of any complaint that the judicial management of North West Transport Investment (Pty) Ltd would be prejudiced financially by the claim was decisive. The court found that the delay in seeking leave was not material and was consistent with the purpose of judicial management, which is to grant a distressed company a moratorium to recover. The merits of the counterclaim were not for this court to decide and…
Source excerpt
Explore more
