Unemployment Insurance Fund and Another v Johnson and Others (Leave to Appeal) (134443/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 939 (18 September 2024)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
134443/2023
Judge
N Davis
Leave to appeal was dismissed after the High Court held there was no reasonable prospect of success and no procedural unfairness in allowing supplementary papers.
Enforced Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others v Verifika Incorporated and Another (599/2021) [2023] ZASCA 5 (25 January 2023)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
599/2021
Judges
Ponnan, Makgoka, Gorven, Nhlangulela, Salie
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a valid demand under a loan agreement triggered default, allowing acceleration of debt and perfection of security without further notice.
Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dilo Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited (In business rescue) and Others (45259/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 642 (19 October 2020)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
45259/2020
Judge
Fabricius
The court held that the applicant's Rule 28 application for amendment and the introduction of prayers for leave to proceed against the first respondent in business rescue should be granted. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, finding that the relevant facts were largely common cause and that the business rescue plan was not aimed at saving the company but at paying creditors. The court accepted that the applicant's right to seek specific performance justified urgency and that the amendments were in the interests of justice, consistent with a modern approach mandated…
Cheetah Chrome South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Dilokong Chrome Mine (Pty) Limited and Others (45259/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 753 (19 October 2020)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
45259/2020
Judge
Fabricius
The court held that the applicant's Rule 28 application for amendment and the corresponding amendments to the notice of motion should be granted. The court found that the relevant facts were largely common cause and that the business rescue plan was not aimed at saving the company but at paying creditors, with no prospect of regaining financial health. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting that the interests of justice required the granting of leave to proceed against the first respondent under section 133(1) of the Companies Act. The court rejected a technical…
VKB Landbou (Pty) Ltd v Van Deventer (6115/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 116 (5 July 2018)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
6115/2017
Judge
I Van Rhyn
The High Court upheld VKB Landbou’s claim, rejected defences of reckless credit and over-indebtedness, and confirmed enforcement of the security agreements.
First Rand Bank Ltd v E Marais Incorporated (67542/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 315 (1 November 2013)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
67542/13
Judge
Mothle S P
The High Court held that the respondent had not properly filed business rescue proceedings, so the section 133 moratorium did not bar the applicant’s security enforcement.
