South Africa Case Law

BKB Limited v De Bod and Others (14384/2024)

BKB Limited v De Bod and Others (14384/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 195 (9 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14384/2024

Judge

RK Parker

The defendants failed to establish a bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim for summary judgment. The principal debt and validity of the suretyship agreement are not disputed. The alleged unlawful interference and defamation by the plaintiff are not substantiated by facts, quantifiable loss, or legal authority that would release the sureties from liability. The affidavits provided do not identify specific agents or quantify any prejudice suffered. The alleged counterclaims are unquantified and have not been pursued by SAFAM, precluding reliance on Rule 22(4). The defences raised are perso…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship Liability
• Unlawful Interference With Contract
• Defamation
• Counterclaim
• Liquidation Application

De Wet and Another in re Olive Trading Company (Pty) Ltd v Kuyanda Commodities 34 CC t/a Bafana Petroleum (2024/024546)

De Wet and Another in re Olive Trading Company (Pty) Ltd v Kuyanda Commodities 34 CC t/a Bafana Petroleum (2024/024546) [2025] ZAGPPHC 390 (23 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/024546

Judge

Neukircher

The Intervening Applicants, as minority members and creditors of Kuyanda, have demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the liquidation proceedings and are entitled to intervene. The business rescue applications pending in the Mpumalanga High Court have been properly commenced and, in terms of section 131(6) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, automatically suspend the liquidation application until adjudication of the business rescue proceedings. The facts and legal issues in this matter are intertwined with multiple related applications already pending in Mpumalanga, and judicial effic…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Joinder Of Parties
• Transfer Of Proceedings
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Oppressive Conduct

Mtech Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Goosen Mega Enterprise (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (024968/24)

Mtech Constructions (Pty) Ltd v Goosen Mega Enterprise (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (024968/24) [2025] ZAGPPHC 296 (18 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

024968/24

Judge

B Lesufi

The threshold for granting leave to appeal has been raised by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, requiring a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances or a sound, rational basis for the appeal against the costs order. The discretion exercised by the court a quo regarding costs was judicious and in accordance with established principles. Both parties contributed to the dispute, and the respondent's initiation of liquidation proceedings was without merit, but the applicant also failed to pay the undisputed amount. The application for l…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Costs Order
• Liquidation Application
• Construction Contract Dispute

Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (D10954/2023)

Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (D10954/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 39 (21 June 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D10954/2023

Judge

Mossop

The High Court refused a postponement in liquidation proceedings, finding the respondent had not shown good cause and that related matters should proceed.

• Postponement Of Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Discovery In Applications
• Urgent Relief
• Postponement
• Liquidation-proceedings

Imvula Quality Protection (Africa) Pty (Ltd) v Dontsa Property Investments (Pty) Limited (037680/2023)

Imvula Quality Protection (Africa) Pty (Ltd) v Dontsa Property Investments (Pty) Limited (037680/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 458 (16 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

037680/2023

Judge

Kubushi

The court held that payment of the debt did not erase the liquidation application, but the applicant was not the successful party and got no costs.

• Liquidation Application
• Costs Award
• Companies Act Section 345
• Abuse Of Process
• Liquidation-application
• Costs-award

Dirk Lotter Vervoer (Pty) Ltd v Sutherland Transport (Pty) Ltd - Application for Leave to Appeal (922/2022)

Dirk Lotter Vervoer (Pty) Ltd v Sutherland Transport (Pty) Ltd - Application for Leave to Appeal (922/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 400 (17 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

922/2022

Judge

Naidoo

The Free State High Court dismissed Dirk Lotter Vervoer’s application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospect of success under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.

• Leave To Appeal
• Liquidation Application
• Interest On Debt
• Punitive Costs
• Striking Out Application
• Leave-to-appeal

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022)

SG Coal (Pty) Ltd v Beryl Coal (Pty) Ltd (05174/2022 ; 007819/2022 ; 38877/2022 ; 040604/2022 ; 022339/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1023 (11 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

05174/2022

Judge

Wepener

The court found that at the time Beryl Partners initiated business rescue proceedings for Beryl Coal, multiple liquidation applications were pending, including those by SG Coal, D&R, and Jabula. This rendered the business rescue proceedings invalid under section 129(2) of the Companies Act. Furthermore, the business rescue application failed to comply with section 131(6) due to improper service and lack of notification to SARS, a major creditor. The return of service could not be amended or condoned without the Sheriff's support, and the evidence did not justify such relief. Inceku Mining's c…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Liquidation Application
• Service Of Process
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act Section 129
• Consolidation Of Applications

Sutherland Transport (PTY) Ltd v Dirk Lotter Vervoer (PTY) Ltd (922/2022)

Sutherland Transport (PTY) Ltd v Dirk Lotter Vervoer (PTY) Ltd (922/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 6 (19 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

922/2022

Judge

Naidoo

The court held the applicant was substantially successful after the respondent paid most of the debt post-service, and awarded interest and attorney-client costs.

• Liquidation Application
• Contractual Indebtedness
• Interest On Debt
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Striking Out Application
• Commercial-debt

MBT Petroleum (Pty) Ltd v Shalom Afslaers CC (M622/2021)

MBT Petroleum (Pty) Ltd v Shalom Afslaers CC (M622/2021) [2022] ZANWHC 41 (14 October 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M622/2021

Judge

R D Hendricks

Leave to appeal was refused in a liquidation matter after the court found no reasonable prospects of success and ordered the applicant to pay costs, including two counsel.

• Leave To Appeal
• Liquidation Application
• Close Corporations Act
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal

Fuelex (Pty) Limited v SP Attorney Incorporated and Others (42546/2020)

Fuelex (Pty) Limited v SP Attorney Incorporated and Others (42546/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 103 (23 July 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42546/2020

Judge

Adams

The court dismissed an opposed liquidation application and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent’s party-and-party costs, including two counsel.

• Liquidation Application
• Costs Award
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Party And Party Costs
• Costs-order
• Liquidation-application