South Africa Case Law

Roux v Fortein NO and Others (A170/2023)

Roux v Fortein NO and Others (A170/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 167 (6 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A170/2023

Judges

JP Daffue, C Reinders, I Van Rhyn

The court held that the payment made by Van Niekerk Boerdery to Roux after the commencement of liquidation proceedings constituted a disposition of property or rights of action by CRE Stropers within the meaning of section 341(2) of the Companies Act. This was ratified by Corbett, the sole member, when he deducted the amount from the invoice, thereby abandoning the corporation's right to claim the full amount from its debtor. Such conduct unfairly preferred Roux over other creditors and violated the principle of concursus creditorum. The disposition was void, and Roux was required to repay th…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Close Corporation
• Concursus Creditorum
• Void Disposition
• Preferential Creditor Treatment
• Companies Act Section 341 2

Liquidators of Tradefirm 195 (Pty) Ltd v Kroons Gourmet Chickens (Pty) Ltd (4945/2007)

Liquidators of Tradefirm 195 (Pty) Ltd v Kroons Gourmet Chickens (Pty) Ltd (4945/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 334 (30 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

4945/2007

Judge

M J Ramagaga

The court set aside a sham sale of a poultry business, finding it was structured to defeat SARS and that no real price or payment was proved.

• Actio Pauliana
• Insolvency Dispositions
• Preferential Creditor Treatment
• Companies Act Section 228
• Sale Of Business
• Tax Avoidance

GWK (Pty) Ltd v Jannie Coffee Boerdery CC and Others (1552/2006)

GWK (Pty) Ltd v Jannie Coffee Boerdery CC and Others (1552/2006) [2007] ZANCHC 5 (24 August 2007)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1552/2006

Judge

BC Molwantwa

The court found that the first respondent was commercially insolvent, having failed to pay its debts to the applicant and other creditors. Despite claims of substantial assets, the respondent was unable to meet its obligations as they fell due and had demonstrated acts of insolvency by selectively paying creditors and negotiating extensions. The respondent's failure to honour payment agreements and the sale of its income-generating farm further evidenced its inability to continue trading. The court held that it was just and equitable to place the first respondent under liquidation, as the sub…

Source excerpt

• Company Liquidation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Preferential Creditor Treatment
• Credit Agreements