South Africa Case Law

Alternative Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Master of the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (4006/2024)

Alternative Finance Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Master of the Free State High Court, Bloemfontein and Others (Application for Leave to Appeal) (4006/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 99 (27 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4006/2024

Judges

Daffue, S. Grobler

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no basis to revisit its earlier ruling on claim 17, discretion, or alleged irregularity.

• Leave To Appeal
• Liquidation Claims
• Exercise Of Discretion
• Section 45 Companies Act
• Costs Award
• Leave-to-appeal

O'Grady and Another v Botha N.O and Others (3809/22)

O'Grady and Another v Botha N.O and Others (3809/22) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 35 (19 June 2023)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3809/22

Judge

Roelofse

The court found that Trifert's claim against North Shore Trading 678 CC has prescribed. The debt became due on or about 30 May 2018, and although North Shore acknowledged its liability on 22 October 2018, this only interrupted prescription, causing it to run afresh from that date. The claim was not admitted for proof at a creditors' meeting, and the delay provisions of section 13 of the Prescription Act did not apply. Consequently, the debt prescribed in October 2021. The applicants were entitled to a declaratory order that Trifert's claim has prescribed. Regarding the review of the liquidato…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Of Debt
• Liquidation Claims
• Creditor Rights
• Review Of Liquidator Decision

Bester NO and Others v CTS Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another (4372/2020)

Bester NO and Others v CTS Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another (4372/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 169 (16 October 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4372/2020

Judge

Davis

The court held that the Master’s section 46 approval let the liquidators disregard set-off, but factual disputes over a related payment required oral evidence.

• Set Off
• Insolvency Act Section 46
• Disposition Of Property
• Preferential Payment
• Motion Proceedings
• Liquidation Claims

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006)

Berrange N.O. and Others v Vorster and Others (37718/2006) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1105 (3 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37718/2006

Judge

A.A. Louw

High Court case dismissing an action for want of prosecution after nearly six years of inactivity, finding the delay inexcusable and seriously prejudicial.

• Dismissal For Want Of Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Delay In Prosecution
• Prejudice To Defendant
• Liquidation Claims
• Dismissal-for-want-of-prosecution

Mawenzi Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (18562/2015)

Mawenzi Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (18562/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 410 (18 March 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18562/2015

Judge

Windell

The court held that Rule 35(12) only obliges production of documents expressly referred to in pleadings or affidavits, not those merely inferred or deduced. The applicants are not entitled to documents regarding the SARS deponent's authority or general information held by SARS, as these were not specifically referenced. However, where SARS referred to further claims against Mawela Properties in its affidavit without attaching supporting documents, the applicants are entitled to those documents. The court ordered SARS to produce the documents requested in paragraph 16 of the Rule 35(12) notice…

Source excerpt

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Tax Administration Act
• Liquidation Claims
• Authority Of Deponent

Fuller and Others v Nel N.O. and Others (9961/12)

Fuller and Others v Nel N.O. and Others (9961/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 69 (30 August 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9961/12

Judge

Mbatha

The High Court dismissed an application seeking to compel a liquidator to investigate and disallow a creditor’s claim in a company liquidation.

• Insolvency Act
• Liquidation Claims
• Creditor Proof
• Mandamus
• Declaratory Relief
• Insolvency

Courier Direct Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Gidani (Pty) Ltd (15683/09)

Courier Direct Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Gidani (Pty) Ltd (15683/09) [2011] ZAGPJHC 71 (11 August 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15683/09

Judge

N.P. Willis

The High Court held that two cessions were in securitatem debiti, not out-and-out transfers, and ordered payment of the admitted debt plus interest and costs.

• Cession In Securitatem Debiti
• Out And Out Cession
• Liquidation Claims
• Counterclaim
• Goods Sold And Delivered
• Cession-in-securitatem-debiti

Thrupp Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Goldrick (A5027/05)

Thrupp Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Goldrick (A5027/05) [2007] ZAGPHC 23; 2008 (2) SA 253 (W) (13 March 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A5027/05

Judges

FHD Van Oosten, LI Goldblatt, BH Mbha

High Court appeal over surety liability, proof of debt, and prescription in a commercial lease dispute. The court upheld the appeal and granted judgment for the appellant.

• Suretyship
• Certificate Of Indebtedness
• Prescription Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Liquidation Claims
• Certificate-of-indebtedness

Jans v Nedcor Bank Ltd (86/02)

Jans v Nedcor Bank Ltd (86/02) [2003] ZASCA 15; [2003] 2 All SA 11 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 646 (SCA) (24 March 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

86/02

Judges

Vivier, Scott, Farlam, Mthiyane, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that under South African law, interruption or delay in the running of prescription in favour of the principal debtor interrupts or delays the running of prescription in favour of a surety. The accessory nature of suretyship, as well as the commonality of the underlying debt, means that the fortunes of the surety's obligation follow those of the principal debtor as far as prescription is concerned. The Court found that the contrary view, as adopted in Rand Bank Ltd v De Jager, was incorrect and that the historical and comparative authorities, including Voet and…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act
• Suretyship
• Accessory Liability
• Interruption Of Prescription
• Liquidation Claims

Leipsig v Bankorp Ltd. (377/92)

Leipsig v Bankorp Ltd. (377/92) [1993] ZASCA 198; 1994 (2) SA 128 (AD); [1994] 2 All SA 150 (A) (1 December 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

377/92

Judges

Hoexter, Nestadt, Eksteen, Nicholas, Harms

The court held that prescription under section 13 resumed once the final liquidation and distribution account was confirmed, so the surety’s debt was prescribed.

• Extinctive Prescription
• Suretyship
• Liquidation Claims
• Prescription Act Section 13
• Extinctive-prescription
• Company-liquidation