Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
1 court collection
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2021] ZAGPJHC 384

EBM Project (Pty) Ltd and Another v Barak Fund SPC Ltd In re: The Holland Insurance Company Ltd v The Master of the High Court and Others (2021/18884)

EBM Project (Pty) Ltd and Another v Barak Fund SPC Ltd In re: The Holland Insurance Company Ltd v The Master of the High Court and Others (2021/18884) [2021] ZAGPJHC 384 (14 June 2021)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2021/18884
Judge
I Opperman

The court held that the business rescue practitioner, Mr Venter, failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under sections 141 and 145 of the Companies Act by proceeding ex parte and not joining affected parties. This omission constituted a jurisdictional defect and rendered the application unlawful. The relief sought, including extended powers for the provisional liquidator and Mr Venter's appointment as consultant, was not competent under the statutory regime. The court found that Mr Venter's conduct was negligent and at odds with his fiduciary duties, warranting a punitive cos…

Source excerpt

  • Business Rescue Proceedings
  • Notice To Affected Persons
  • Conversion To Liquidation
  • Joinder Of Parties
  • Costs De Bonis Propriis
Read case analysis
Civil Procedure [2016] ZAGPJHC 233

Geldenhuys and Others v Orthotouch Limited and Others; In re: Highveld Syndication Investors v Orthotouch Limited (42334/2014)

Geldenhuys and Others v Orthotouch Limited and Others; In re: Highveld Syndication Investors v Orthotouch Limited (42334/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 233 (1 September 2016)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
42334/2014
Judge
Spilg

The court held that the order for substituted service was purely procedural and not determinative of the parties' substantive rights. The order was made to ensure effective notification to thousands of affected investors, balancing practicality and the interests of justice. The attempt to render the order appealable by raising constitutional or substantive law points was rejected. The court found no prejudice to Klopper, who failed to provide reasons for changing his position. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the order for substituted service was amended to accommodate any…

Source excerpt

  • Substituted Service
  • Scheme Of Arrangement
  • Business Rescue
  • Notice To Affected Persons
  • Judicial Discretion
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.