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
Howie v Daren N.O (A185/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 352 (8 April 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal against final sequestration, finding the respondent had not proved an act of insolvency from the debtor’s email.
Steyn v Steyn N.O and Others (35958/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 44; 2024 (4) SA 285 (GP) (10 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed a sequestration application against a family trust, finding the trustee-applicant acted self-servingly and failed to prove insolvency.
Prudential Authority v Mayongo and Another (21547/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 38 (26 January 2022)
The High Court refused a postponement and granted final sequestration of the respondents’ joint estate after finding unauthorised deposit-taking and non-repayment under the Banks Act.
Marishane and Another v Body Corporate of Mont Rouge A1 (78076/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 736 (29 March 2018)
Leave to appeal against a final sequestration order was dismissed. The court held that SARS had been properly served and that rescission, not appeal, was the proper route.
Blue Strata Trading (Pty) Ltd v Darrier and Another (21119/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 372 (5 July 2017)
The applicant retained locus standi under the cession agreement with Investec Bank, as the agreement allows the applicant to claim in its own name unless a default event occurs, which has not happened. The respondents' opposition based on lack of locus standi is unfounded, as they inspected the cession agreement and clause 3 clearly supports the applicant's position. The respondents have had ample time to obtain evidence and their request for postponement is a delaying tactic. The respondents are unable to pay their debts, and sequestration will benefit creditors. All statutory formalities ha…
Source excerpt
Strutfast (Pty) Limited v Uys and Another (5675/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 183; 2017 (6) SA 491 (GJ) (5 July 2017)
The application for the joint sequestration of two individuals who are not married in community of property and do not have a complete identity of interests runs contrary to established practice and precedent in the Gauteng Courts. The applicant failed to distinguish between the creditors and assets of each respondent, instead treating them as a composite group, which is impermissible. The precedent set in Ferela (Pty) Ltd v Craigie remains authoritative and was incorrectly departed from in Bobroff. The requirement of advantage to creditors must be assessed separately for each respondent, and…
Source excerpt
Chiliza v Govender and Another (20837/14) [2016] ZASCA 47; 2016 (4) SA 397 (SCA) (31 March 2016)
The SCA held that failure to serve a provisional sequestration order on SARS under section 11(2A)(c) of the Insolvency Act is fatal.
Stratford and Others v Investec Bank Limited and Others (CCT 62/14) [2014] ZACC 38; 2015 (3) BCLR 358 (CC); 2015 (3) SA 1 (CC); (2015) 36 ILJ 583 (CC) (19 December 2014)
Section 9(4A) of the Insolvency Act must be interpreted to include domestic employees, as the term 'employees' is unqualified and a narrow reading would undermine constitutional rights to equality, dignity, and fair labour practices. The Court found that the purpose of notice is to respect the dignity of all employees affected by sequestration, not only those in business contexts. Compliance with section 9(4A) is peremptory, but the method of furnishing notice is directory; it suffices if the petition is made available in a manner reasonably likely to make it accessible to employees. In this…
Source excerpt
Du Randt Richards Inc. Attorneys v Scheepers No and Another (29608/12) [2012] ZAGPJHC 239 (29 November 2012)
High Court sequestration matter on whether there was an advantage to creditors under section 12(c) of the Insolvency Act.
Opperman v Boonzaaier and Others (24887/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 27 (17 April 2012)
Section 89(5)(c) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 mandates the forfeiture to the state of restitution claims by unregistered credit providers, even where such forfeiture results in unjust enrichment of the consumer. The court found that this provision constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of property in breach of section 25(1) of the Constitution. The forfeiture mechanism is not sufficiently justified by the regulatory objectives of the Act, especially where the lender is not a habitual credit provider and the transaction does not implicate vulnerable consumers. The common law consequence…
Source excerpt
Explore more
