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
Astra Constantine Inc v Jones and Another (25801/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 238 (3 June 2025)
The High Court granted provisional sequestration after finding a liquidated claim, an act of insolvency, and a reasonable prospect of benefit to creditors.
Cooper N.O and Others v VAB Sales and Distribution (Pty) Ltd (1498/22) [2024] ZAWCHC 379; [2025] 1 All SA 178 (WCC) (19 November 2024)
The court found that all four payments made by Cape Basic Products (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) to VAB Sales and Distribution (Pty) Ltd after the commencement of winding up constitute void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act. The respondent’s argument that Savers Lane Holdings (Pty) Ltd was a separate entity was rejected, as evidence established that Savers Lane was merely the trading name of the third applicant. The payments were not made in the ordinary course of business but were preferential, giving the respondent an unfair advantage over other creditors. The court determ…
Source excerpt
Cooper N.O and Others v Blue Label Distributions (2022/5762) [2024] ZAGPJHC 615; [2024] 3 All SA 800 (GJ) (2 July 2024)
The court found that the payments made by CBP to Blue Label after provisional liquidation were not ring-fenced for suppliers and were deposited into Blue Label's general bank account, over which Blue Label had sole disposal rights. Blue Label benefitted from the payments by earning commission and improving its position, thus it was not a mere conduit. The payments constituted void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act, as they were made after the establishment of the concursus creditorum and preferred Blue Label above other creditors. The court held that the liquidators were…
Source excerpt
Sackstein NO v Proudfoot SA (Pty) Ltd. (141/05) [2006] ZASCA 8; [2006] 2 All SA 577 (SCA); 2006 (6) SA 358 (SCA) (10 March 2006)
The court held that the inability to pay debts for purposes of s 340(1) of the Companies Act must exist at the time the impeachment proceedings are brought, not merely at the date of liquidation or any time thereafter. The appellant conceded that he had not discharged the onus of proving the company's inability to pay at the time the action was instituted, resulting in the failure of the statutory claims. Regarding the contractual claims, the court found that the principal claim was not based on enrichment or restitution, and no cancellation was alleged in the main claim. The alternative clai…
Source excerpt
Explore more
