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
ABSA Bank Limited v Loumarles Landgoed (Pty) Ltd (2023/131314) [2025] ZAGPPHC 773 (7 August 2025)
The High Court granted ABSA a provisional winding-up order against Loumarles Landgoed, finding commercial insolvency and rejecting reliance on alternative remedies.
Hans Merensky Landowners Association (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sky Residential Properties (Pty) Ltd (2025/080158) [2025] ZALMPPHC 125 (24 June 2025)
The High Court granted final winding-up of a company that failed to pay levy debts, rejected a set-off defence, and found commercial insolvency.
L. D. v M[...] P[...] I[...] (Pty) Ltd and Another (A132469/2023; A133154/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 193 (26 February 2025)
Appeals over derivative-action leave and company winding-up were decided separately: derivative relief was refused, but the company was finally wound up.
Bruyns v Ridgeback Rentals (Pty) Ltd (2023/070025) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1183 (18 November 2024)
The court found that the relationship between the two equal shareholders and directors had irreparably broken down, resulting in a deadlock that rendered the company unmanageable. The applicant established that the deadlock was real, irreparable, and detrimental to the company's future. The respondent's reliance on procedural technicalities and the shareholder agreement's arbitration clause was rejected, as internal remedies were impractical due to the deadlock. The court held that insolvency was not a prerequisite for liquidation under the just and equitable ground, and the applicant's case…
Source excerpt
Firstrand Bank Limited v Yenza Trading 519 CC t/a Masenkeng Marketing (5917/2022; 5772/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 411 (23 October 2023)
The High Court confirmed the final liquidation of Yenza Trading 519 CC after finding it commercially and factually insolvent and unable to pay its debts.
Pietersen and Another v Shadow Academy Global NPC and Another (15687/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 218 (18 August 2023)
The court found the composite application for winding-up of both respondents to be irregular and impermissible, as there was no consent or identity of interests. The first applicant, having been removed as director, had no standing or benefit from the liquidation of the first respondent, which operates for public benefit and is compliant with revenue laws. The claims against the second respondent, including unpaid salary and intellectual property usage, were disputed on bona fide and reasonable grounds, with no supporting financial documentation. The second respondent was found to be solvent,…
Source excerpt
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission v Selective Empowerment Investments 1 Ltd [2023] ZAGPPHC 334; 35867/2020 (24 April 2023)
The court found that the technical requirements of section 81(1)(f) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 were not met, as there was no prior administrative fine or conviction within five years for substantially the same conduct. However, the applicant, as the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission, is an interested person with locus standi under section 344(h) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The respondent persistently failed to comply with statutory obligations, traded in insolvent circumstances, and disregarded compliance notices. The respondent’s directors refused to voluntarily liquid…
Source excerpt
Nile Dutch Africa B.V v Crystal Pier Shipping Proprietary Limited and Others (11530/2021P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 47 (14 September 2022)
The High Court set aside a business rescue resolution and placed the company under provisional liquidation after finding no reasonable prospect of rescue.
EVZ Industriele Dienste 2 CC v Early Moon Trading 361 CC (92335/15) [2020] ZAGPPHC 80 (28 February 2020)
The applicant failed to establish that the respondent is commercially insolvent or that its refusal to pay was not based on a bona fide dispute. The respondent raised genuine and reasonable grounds for disputing both the amount and the timing of payment, including the existence of an agreement to defer payment pending arbitration and the provision of security by paying the disputed amount into its attorneys' trust account. The court accepted the respondent's version of the facts in accordance with the Plascon-Evans Rule and found that the applicant did not prove neglect or inability to pay as…
Source excerpt
Knipe v Kameelhoek (Pty) Ltd and Others (2120/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 193 (10 November 2016)
The court dismissed an application to place already liquidated family companies into business rescue, finding no reasonable prospect of rescue and awarding punitive costs.
Explore more
