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
DCL Interiors CC (In Liquidation) v Weavind & Weavind INC and Others (3024/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 949 (23 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed a liquidators’ application over payments from an attorney trust account after winding-up, finding the corporation’s deregistration left the liquidators without mandate.
De Beer N.O and Others v Magistrate of Dundee N.O and Others (5148/2020P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 70; [2021] 1 All SA 405 (KZP) (19 November 2020)
High Court review set aside a section 69 Insolvency Act warrant, finding it was applied for before formal appointment and executed unlawfully.
Safta Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v Vukani Aviation (Pty) Ltd and Others (34072/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 667 (17 June 2020)
The High Court dismissed a liquidation-related application after finding the applicants lacked authority to institute proceedings and ordered personal costs against them.
Venter v Matsepe and Others (4528/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 17 (28 March 2019)
The court found that the first and second respondents, as joint liquidators, lacked authority to act without the participation of the third co-liquidator. The powers of attorney produced did not confer valid authority, as joint liquidators must act jointly and any disagreement must be referred to the Master in terms of section 382 of the Companies Act. The respondents did not obtain authority from a meeting of creditors nor did they seek direction from the Master or the court to resolve the impasse. Consequently, the fifth respondent had no authority to represent the first and second responde…
Source excerpt
Matsepe N.O. and Another v Master of the High Court, Free State Division, Bloemfontein and Another (567/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 56 (13 April 2017)
The court held that a challenge under Rule 7(1) required the applicants to prove authority to act, and postponed the matter for production of documents.
Auby v Pellow and Another In re: Pellow and Another v Auby (A5009/12, 2010/31668) [2013] ZAGPJHC 211 (6 March 2013)
The court held that the appellant, not being a creditor or member of Western Breeze, had no legal basis to challenge the authority of the liquidators to institute proceedings. The lack of authorisation from creditors or the Master is relevant only to the costs as between the liquidators and the company, not to the validity of the proceedings against third parties. The respondents' authority was further ratified by Investec Bank, the major creditor, through a letter of guarantee. However, the court found that there were genuine disputes of fact regarding the circumstances and validity of the a…
Source excerpt
Griffin and Others v Master of the High Court and Others (446/2004) [2005] ZASCA 79; 2006 (1) SA 187 (SCA) (19 September 2005)
The court held that a close corporation liquidator needs proper authority from creditors and members, or the Master, to admit claims; a members' resolution alone is insufficient.
Explore more
