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
Montana v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (2023-047735) [2025] ZAGPPHC 749 (21 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed condonation for a late answering affidavit in sequestration proceedings and granted SARS’s strike-out application with punitive costs.
First Rand Bank Limited v Basson N.O and Another (A23/106542) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1250 (29 November 2024)
The court found that there was a material dispute of fact regarding the valuation of the Trust's assets, specifically the immovable and movable properties. The expert affidavits submitted by both parties were at odds, with significant differences in the estimated values. These disputes could not be resolved on the papers in motion proceedings. The court held that the appellant failed to establish factual insolvency of the Trust on the available evidence. As the central issue of factual insolvency could not be determined without oral evidence, the appeal was dismissed. The court did not consid…
Source excerpt
Dibe and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another (147/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 318 (17 October 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to make a timeous and formal application for postponement, did not provide a satisfactory explanation for their predicament, and had repeatedly delayed proceedings without fulfilling promises to pay. The applicants did not comply with procedural requirements for rescission, including service on creditors and the trustee, nor did they demonstrate exceptional circumstances or a bona fide defence. The application for postponement was dismissed as not being in the interests of justice, and the rescission application was dismissed for lack of merit and pr…
Source excerpt
Mantsho and Another v Hiroschowitz Flionis Attorneys (Leave to Appeal) (45098/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 755 (15 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a sequestration-related matter, finding no reasonable prospects of success and ordering costs against the applicants.
Garnnett-Adams Properties (Pty) Ltd v Thomas (029983/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 534 (4 June 2024)
The High Court allowed a respondent’s late supplementary affidavit in a sequestration matter because it was material to creditor advantage and caused no undue prejudice.
Wood v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund (21/21875) [2024] ZAGPJHC 445 (7 May 2024)
The court found that the applicant's arguments regarding the onus and hearsay evidence were without merit. The authorities cited by Mr Wood did not support his contentions. The court confirmed that sequestration proceedings are civil in nature, and hearsay evidence may be admitted under the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The Fund's reliance on company records and the absence of a real dispute of fact justified the original sequestration order. The applicant's technical objections were viewed as attempts to obscure the substantive issues. The court was not satisfied that another court would re…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of Mionette v Lekganyane (34744/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 608 (27 July 2023)
Leave to appeal was dismissed where the court found no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to hear an appeal.
Willemhendriksvlei (PTY) Ltd and Another v Pieters (1563/2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 1 (19 January 2023)
The High Court held that, after settlement and payment of the debt, the respondent must pay the sequestration application costs, including two counsel.
Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena N.O and Another (3797/2022) [2022] ZALMPPHC 43; [2022] 4 All SA 274 (LP) (18 July 2022)
The court found that the evidence from the section 417 and 418 enquiry, relied upon by the applicants, is inadmissible against the Trust as it constitutes hearsay and was not confirmed by the witnesses in these proceedings. The applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for admission of hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as the evidence was incomplete, untested, and prejudicial to the respondents. The court further held that the applicants did not establish their locus standi as creditors, as the alleged indebtedness of the Trust is bona fide dispu…
Source excerpt
Mercantile Bank Limited v MMR (MBR intervening) (2020/19791) [2022] ZAGPJHC 199 (5 April 2022)
The court found that the intervening party, as a creditor with an ongoing claim for maintenance and patrimonial relief, has a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter of the sequestration proceedings. The allegations made by the applicant directly implicate the intervening party and place her property at risk. The court exercised its discretion to allow intervention, noting that creditors are entitled to intervene in sequestration applications and that the intervening party's interest is not merely financial but legal and material. The court rejected the applicant's argumen…
Source excerpt
Explore more
