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
Africor Auctioneers (Pty) Ltd v Blue Dot Properties 1875 CC and Another (6436/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 996 (8 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against refusal of a final winding-up order, finding no reasonable prospects of success.
Moolmam v Nyati Meats CC and Another (35045/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 368 (2 July 2020)
The court found that the application for liquidation was not competent due to the existence of bona fide and reasonable disputes of fact regarding the alleged indebtedness and delivery of livestock. Liquidation proceedings are not appropriate for resolving disputed claims, which should be determined by way of action. The applicant failed to comply with statutory requirements for service of demand at the registered office of the first respondent, rendering the application irregular. The request to refer the matter to trial was refused, as such referral is not suitable in liquidation proceeding…
Source excerpt
Fraser NO and Others v Amalgamated Brokers CC (7806/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 78 (27 June 2012)
The court found that the respondent received the letter of demand, as evidenced by the post office confirmation and the respondent's lack of denial. Strict compliance with the statutory method of service is unnecessary where the respondent is effectually notified. The respondent failed to pay the debt demanded, satisfying the statutory test for inability to pay debts. The transaction was characterized as a purchase and sale rather than agency, based on the respondent's conduct, documentation, and the levying of VAT. The respondent acted negligently by paying the supplier without adequate veri…
Source excerpt
Green v Amalgamated Brokers CC (7806/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 44 (26 June 2012)
The court found that the applicant had complied with the statutory requirements for service of demand, as the respondent received the letter of demand and did not dispute receipt. The respondent's failure to pay the demanded debt after service of the letter satisfies the requirements for deeming it unable to pay its debts under section 345(1)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act. The transaction between the parties was characterized as a purchase and sale rather than an agency, based on the conduct of the respondent and the nature of the transaction. The respondent was found to have acted negligently…
Source excerpt
Explore more
