South Africa Case Law

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Ramalho, NO and Another (946/2023)

Pick n Pay Retailers (Pty) Ltd v Ramalho, NO and Another (946/2023) [2025] ZASCA 97 (2 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

946/2023

Judges

Zondi, Unterhalter, Coppin, Phatshoane, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the payment made to Pick n Pay by White & Case after the liquidation of Lashka was unlawful, as it disregarded the concursus creditorum established by the liquidation. The mandate to White & Case and the authority given to Pick n Pay to instruct payment terminated upon Lashka's liquidation. The payment constituted a preferential settlement of Pick n Pay's claim to the detriment of other creditors and was contrary to the principles of insolvency law. The Sale of Business Agreement was not an uncompleted executory contract requiring further performance, as…

Source excerpt

• Concursus Creditorum
• Insolvency Dispositions
• Liquidation
• Mandate Termination
• Preferential Payment

Fortein N.O. and Another v Roux and Another (1059/2023)

Fortein N.O. and Another v Roux and Another (1059/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 311 (7 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1059/2023

Judge

Loubser

The court ordered a respondent to repay money paid after liquidation of a close corporation, finding the payment prejudiced other creditors in insolvency.

• Void Disposition
• Liquidation
• Concursus Creditorum
• Preferential Payment
• Companies Act
• Close Corporations Act

Bester N.O and Others v CTS Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another (4372/2020)

Bester N.O and Others v CTS Trailers (Pty) Ltd and Another (4372/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 186; 2021 (4) SA 167 (WCC) (16 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4372/2020

Judge

Davis

The High Court held that the Master’s approval under section 46 let liquidators disregard a disputed set-off, but referred key payment issues to oral evidence.

• Set Off
• Insolvency Act Section 46
• Disposition Of Property
• Preferential Payment
• Motion Proceedings
• Concursus Creditorum

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

Mondo Meccano Civil Contractors CC v Daniels and Simpson Properties CC (22343/2018; 22344/2018)

Mondo Meccano Civil Contractors CC v Daniels and Simpson Properties CC (22343/2018; 22344/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 656 (13 December 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22343/2018; 22344/2018

Judge

Twala M L

The court found that the underlying debt between the applicant and the respondents had been paid, thereby extinguishing the applicant’s locus standi to bring the winding up application under section 345 of the Companies Act. The dispute regarding the calculation of interest and costs was considered bona fide and raised on reasonable grounds, which precluded the granting of a winding up order. The court further held that any inquiry into whether the payment constituted a voidable preference would require separate proceedings and could not be determined in the present application. The responden…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Acknowledgement Of Debt
• Preferential Payment
• Locus Standi
• Costs Award

Absa Bank Ltd v Murray and Another (CA338/2017)

Absa Bank Ltd v Murray and Another (CA338/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 75 (28 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA338/2017

Judges

C Plasket, J Smith, T Malusi

The High Court dismissed Absa’s appeal against the discharge of a provisional sequestration order, holding that a new act-of-insolvency point could not be raised in heads of argument.

• Sequestration
• Acts Of Insolvency
• Debt Review
• Founding Affidavit Requirements
• Preferential Payment
• Acts-of-insolvency

Stander NO and Another v Wouter Raymond Bouwer t/a Bouwer & Heyns Legal Cost Consultants (34450/2011)

Stander NO and Another v Wouter Raymond Bouwer t/a Bouwer & Heyns Legal Cost Consultants (34450/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 148 (3 August 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34450/2011

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the payment of R750,000.00 to the respondent was made after the commencement of winding-up and constituted a disposition of KLS's property as contemplated by section 341(2) of the Companies Act. The payment was not made in the ordinary course of business but was intended to prefer selected creditors, including the respondent, to the detriment of the general body of creditors. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving circumstances justifying validation of the payment. The court exercised its discretion against validation, declared the disposition void, and or…

Source excerpt

• Void Disposition
• Companies Act 1973
• Liquidation
• Preferential Payment
• Judicial Discretion

Gazit Properties (Pty) Ltd v Botha NO and Others (873/2010)

Gazit Properties (Pty) Ltd v Botha NO and Others (873/2010) [2011] ZASCA 199; 2012 (2) SA 306 (SCA) (23 November 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

873/2010

Judges

Harms, Heher, Snyders, Shongwe, Majiedt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that repayments made under valid loan agreements were in the ordinary course of business, despite the debtor’s unlawful banking activities.

• Insolvency Act Section 29
• Ordinary Course Of Business
• Unlawful Banking
• Preferential Payment
• Liquidation
• Contractual Obligation

Van Rensburg NO and Others v Botha (18146/2005)

Van Rensburg NO and Others v Botha (18146/2005) [2010] ZAGPPHC 88 (30 July 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

18146/2005

Judge

HJ Fabricius

The Plaintiffs failed to prove the jurisdictional facts required by Section 29 of the Insolvency Act. There was no evidence that the entities for which the Plaintiffs acted were legal persons capable of insolvency or that they owned the cash disposed of. All payments were made and controlled by Mrs Prinsloo personally, and there was no proof that the Defendant was a creditor of any of the entities. The consolidation order did not create a legal entity nor bind the Defendant, who was not a party to it. The Plaintiffs did not establish that any disposition occurred from an insolvent estate to t…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act Section 29
• Multiplication Scheme
• Unlawful Business Practices
• Preferential Payment
• Corporate Persona
• Jurisdictional Facts

Motala and Seriti NNO v Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd, Motala and Seriti NNO v Jofida Construction (Pty) Ltd (35649/2009, 35953/2009)

Motala and Seriti NNO v Mineral Loy (Pty) Ltd, Motala and Seriti NNO v Jofida Construction (Pty) Ltd (35649/2009, 35953/2009) [2009] ZAGPPHC 116 (4 August 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35649/2009, 35953/2009

Judge

N M Mavundla

Liquidators recovered post-liquidation payments made by Hua Wei Manufacturing to two respondents and the court held the payments void under section 341(2).

• Liquidation Proceedings
• Impeachable Disposition
• Preferential Payment
• Companies Act Section 341
• Interest On Judgment Debt
• Liquidation-proceedings