South Africa Case Law

Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918)

Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 126 (10 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/127918

Judge

N van der Walt

The court found that the instalment sale agreement was validly cancelled on 17 November 2023, as the preconditions of non-payment and due demand were met and the alleged 'Klopper agreement' was not credible. Despite some non-compliance with publication requirements under sections 129(3) and 129(4) of the Companies Act, business rescue proceedings remain valid and in force until set aside by a court. The statutory moratorium under section 133(1) applies, prohibiting Capitec from reclaiming the vehicle without the business rescue practitioner’s consent or leave of court. The court rejected Capi…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Rei Vindicatio
• Contract Cancellation

Ergomode (Pty) Ltd v Jordaan NO and Others (643/2022)

Ergomode (Pty) Ltd v Jordaan NO and Others (643/2022) [2024] ZASCA 10 (29 January 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

643/2022

Judges

Petse, Mocumie, Weiner, Molefe, Windell

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extensions for publication of the business rescue plan were validly granted by majority creditor consent, as permitted by s 150(5)(b) of the Companies Act, and did not require a formal meeting. Ergomode participated in the adoption meeting without objection and its subsequent challenge was unsustainable. The determination of Ergomode as a non-independent creditor was not reviewed within the prescribed five-day period, and no substantive case for condonation was made. The moratorium in s 133 applies to all legal proceedings, including perfection of a l…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Creditor Voting Rights
• Landlord Hypothec
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Condonation
• Employee Representation

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Louis Pasteur Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (12194/2017)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services v Louis Pasteur Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (12194/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 230; 2022 (5) SA 179 (GP) (11 April 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

12194/2017

Judge

Millar

The court found that Louis Pasteur Investments (Pty) Ltd was hopelessly insolvent and that the business rescue plan had failed to achieve its statutory purpose. SARS, as a major creditor, was not properly notified of the business rescue or the adoption of the plan, and its claim was deliberately understated and marked as disputed to present a false picture of solvency. The moratorium on legal proceedings had been lifted by court order, and the opposition to liquidation by the business rescue practitioner was unreasonable and in breach of his statutory duties as an officer of the court. The ar…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Creditor Rights
• Companies Act
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Punitive Costs

Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (85778/19)

Merchant West (Pty) Ltd v Crestar Printers & Publishers (Pty) Ltd (85778/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85778/19

Judge

C N Van Heerden

The High Court held that a properly made business rescue application suspended the liquidation proceedings and dismissed the applicant’s request to proceed under section 133(1)(b).

• Business Rescue
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Companies Act Section 131
• Companies Act Section 133
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Business-rescue

Timasani (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue) and Another v Afrimat Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd (91/2020)

Timasani (Pty) Ltd (in business rescue) and Another v Afrimat Iron Ore (Pty) Ltd (91/2020) [2021] ZASCA 43; [2021] 3 All SA 843 (SCA) (13 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

91/2020

Judges

Wallis, Schippers, Nicholls, Gorven, Unterhalter

The SCA held that Afrimat could recover a provisional deposit paid for assets of a company in business rescue because the money was not property of the company.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Deposit Repayment
• Non Joinder
• Creditor Notification

SA Airlink v SAA (SOC) Limited and Others (238/2020)

SA Airlink v SAA (SOC) Limited and Others (238/2020) [2020] ZASCA 156 (30 November 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

238/2020

Judges

Maya, Dambuza, Van der Merwe, Makgoka, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Airlink’s claim to SAA ticket revenue was a debt, not its property, and that business-rescue moratorium rules barred the claim.

• Business Rescue
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Agency Vs Debtor Creditor
• Contractual Interpretation
• Business-rescue
• Moratorium-on-legal-proceedings

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v A-Team Africa Trading CC (7233/15)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v A-Team Africa Trading CC (7233/15) [2015] ZAKZPHC 51; 2016 (1) SA 503 (KZP) (17 November 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7233/15

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The court held that the business rescue application, brought before the hearing of the liquidation application, had the effect of suspending the liquidation application in terms of section 131(6) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. The judge rejected the reasoning in Summer Lodge and similar cases, finding that liquidation proceedings commence with the launching of the application, not only after a provisional order is granted. The court interpreted 'liquidation proceedings' in section 131(6) to include the application itself, supported by statutory wording and context. The judge further noted t…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Statutory Interpretation
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings

LA Sport 4X4 Outdoor CC and Another v Broadsword Trading 20 (Pty) Limited and Others (A513/2013)

LA Sport 4X4 Outdoor CC and Another v Broadsword Trading 20 (Pty) Limited and Others (A513/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 78 (26 February 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A513/2013

Judges

Tuchten, Pretorius, Msimeki

The court held that the appellants were creditors of the company and thus affected persons entitled to bring an application under section 130(1) of the Companies Act to set aside the business rescue resolution. The right to bring such an application is not subject to the moratorium on legal proceedings in section 133(1), and no leave of court or practitioner consent was required. Even if such leave were required, it was impliedly granted by the court below. The cancellation of the sale, dealership, and trademark license agreements by the appellants was lawful and effective, as the dispatch of…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Creditor Standing
• Contract Cancellation
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings

Blue Star Holdings (Pty) Ltd v West Coast Oyster Growers CC (2544/2013)

Blue Star Holdings (Pty) Ltd v West Coast Oyster Growers CC (2544/2013) [2013] ZAWCHC 136; 2013 (6) SA 540 (WCC) (23 August 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2544/2013

Judge

P.A.L Gamble

The court held that the lodging of the business rescue application with the Registrar constitutes the 'making' of the application for purposes of section 131(6) of the Companies Act, 71 of 2008. Accordingly, the pending winding-up proceedings are automatically suspended from the moment the business rescue application is filed and served, not when it is first heard in open court. This interpretation aligns with the statutory purpose of efficient rescue and recovery of financially distressed companies and avoids impractical or absurd consequences. The applicant, as an affected person, retains t…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Winding Up
• Companies Act 2008
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Costs Orders

Merchant West Working Capital Solutions (Pty) LTD v Advanced Technologies and Engineering Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (13/12406)

Merchant West Working Capital Solutions (Pty) LTD v Advanced Technologies and Engineering Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (13/12406) [2013] ZAGPJHC 109 (10 May 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13/12406

Judge

N F Kgomo

The High Court held that an urgent application to perfect security over a helicopter was barred by the Companies Act business rescue moratorium.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Moratorium On Legal Proceedings
• Perfection Of Security
• Locus Standi
• Urgent Interdict