South Africa Case Law

Rogal Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Victor Turnkey Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (53473/2021)

Rogal Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another v Victor Turnkey Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others (53473/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 167 (28 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53473/2021

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the applicant is a creditor and thus an affected person under the Companies Act, entitled to seek the setting aside of the business rescue resolution. The applicant's claim, though unliquidated, arises from a breach of contract and is supported by a complete cause of action. The respondents' denials were bare and unsupported by evidence, failing to create a genuine dispute of fact. The business rescue plan was finally rejected at the creditors' meeting on 3 December 2021, and no steps were taken by the practitioner or affected parties to prepare a revised plan or challeng…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Winding Up
• Creditor Locus Standi
• Contractual Breach
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc v Strategic Fuel Fund Association; Strategic Fuel Fund Association v Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc (28167/2012)

Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc v Strategic Fuel Fund Association; Strategic Fuel Fund Association v Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc (28167/2012) [2019] ZAGPJHC 332 (28 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28167/2012

Judges

Twala M L, Victor M

The High Court upheld an arbitration award, confirmed prescribed-rate interest on USD damages, and held set-off could operate only once the claims were liquidated.

• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest Act
• Set Off
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims
• Development Of Common Law
• Arbitration-award-enforcement

Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd v Schoultz and Others (4954/2016)

Komani Discount Centre (Pty) Ltd v Schoultz and Others (4954/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 81 (20 June 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4954/2016

Judge

NG Beshe

The court held that, although the application for default judgment was unopposed and the defendants were barred, the nature of the relief sought under Section 64 of the Close Corporations Act was not for a liquidated claim or debt. In such cases, Rule 31(2)(a) requires the court to hear evidence before granting default judgment. The plaintiff failed to lead any evidence to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants had acted recklessly or with gross negligence in the conduct of Triosafe Transport CC's business. The court relied on the principle established in Minnaar v Van Rooy…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporations Act Section 64
• Reckless Trading
• Default Judgment
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims

Jansen Van Vuuren v Reinecke (703/2012)

Jansen Van Vuuren v Reinecke (703/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 109 (24 July 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

703/2012

Judge

C. H. G. Van Der Merwe

The High Court held that rule 31(5)(d) can be used by a defendant to seek rescission of registrar-granted default judgment, and set the judgment aside.

• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 31 5 D
• Good Cause Requirement
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims
• Default-judgment

Bedford Square Properties (Pty) Limited v Pakon Restaurants (Pty) Limited T/A Ciao Baby Cucina and Another (2013/27964)

Bedford Square Properties (Pty) Limited v Pakon Restaurants (Pty) Limited T/A Ciao Baby Cucina and Another (2013/27964) [2014] ZAGPJHC 180 (15 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/27964

Judge

Opperman

The applicant was found to have locus standi to pursue the damages claim due to the retrospective re-cession agreement with Nedbank, which cured the absence of a cause of action at the time of launching the application. The court held that the rental value for the holding over period could be accepted as the market rental value in the absence of countervailing evidence from the respondents. Disputed ancillary charges, interest, repairs, and other items were found to be illiquid or inadequately substantiated and were referred to trial. The respondents were held jointly and severally liable for…

Source excerpt

• Lease Agreement
• Holding Over
• Damages Calculation
• Cession Of Claims
• Suretyship
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims

Welman v Gouws and Another (32183/2008)

Welman v Gouws and Another (32183/2008) [2010] ZAFSHC 145 (18 November 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

32183/2008

Judges

Murray, Jordaan

High Court appeal on condonation and rescission of default judgment. The court largely upheld the refusal, setting aside only a minor unliquidated portion.

• Condonation
• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims
• Contractual Liability
• Rescission-of-default-judgment
• Default-judgment