South Africa Case Law

Intello Capital CC v Sigge Managed Solutions (Pty) Limited (5974/2022)

Intello Capital CC v Sigge Managed Solutions (Pty) Limited (5974/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 173 (6 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5974/2022

Judge

Adams

The court found that Sigge Managed Solutions is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts to Intello Capital, as evidenced by two written acknowledgments of debt and the absence of a bona fide defence. The respondent's misrepresentation defence was rejected as bad in law and unsupported by the facts. The court held that strict compliance with section 346(4A) of the Companies Act regarding service on employees and trade unions is not an absolute requirement for granting a provisional winding-up order, provided the statutory purpose of notifying employees is substantially achieved. The…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Liquidation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Bona Fide Dispute
• Service On Employees
• Winding Up Procedure

Nzwalo Investments (Pty) Ltd v Infoguardian (Pty) Ltd (6950/2020)

Nzwalo Investments (Pty) Ltd v Infoguardian (Pty) Ltd (6950/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 95 (23 July 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6950/2020

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that section 346A(1)(b) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 had not been complied with, as the provisional winding-up order was not properly served on the respondent's employees. Service on the respondent's attorney, even with an undertaking to forward the order to employees, does not satisfy the statutory requirement, given that employees have distinct interests from the company itself. The provisional winding-up order does not lapse simply because the return day was not extended; it remains in effect until the final disposition of the application. The matter was postponed to allo…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Service On Employees
• Provisional Winding Up Order
• Companies Act 1973
• Procedural Compliance

Bravura Capital (Pty) Limited v Drive Path Trade & Invest (Pty) Limited t/a South Energy (29755/2019)

Bravura Capital (Pty) Limited v Drive Path Trade & Invest (Pty) Limited t/a South Energy (29755/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 3 (1 February 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

29755/2019

Judge

Gilbert

High Court provisional winding-up granted after the respondent failed to show that its debt dispute was bona fide and on reasonable grounds.

• Winding Up Of Company
• Creditor Claims
• Service On Employees
• Retainer Agreement
• Bona Fide Dispute
• Prescription

Informed Accounting & Brokerage Services (Pty) Ltd v Taurus Holdings CC (25483/2018)

Informed Accounting & Brokerage Services (Pty) Ltd v Taurus Holdings CC (25483/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 318 (22 February 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

25483/2018

Judge

Twala M L

The High Court dismissed an opposed winding-up application, finding no basis to show liquidation would benefit creditors and holding that statutory employee service requirements were not met.

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Advantage Of Creditors
• Service On Employees
• Abuse Of Process
• Winding-up-of-companies
• Advantage-of-creditors

Khan v Sprint Logistics SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (5924.2016; 12824.2015; 3167.2016; 78.2016)

Khan v Sprint Logistics SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (5924.2016; 12824.2015; 3167.2016; 78.2016) [2016] ZAKZDHC 43 (4 November 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

5924/2016

Judge

Chetty

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a reasonable prospect of rescuing Sprint Logistics SA (Pty) Ltd. The business rescue application was premised on assets and a lease that were either overvalued or no longer available, as the company had been evicted from its premises and lacked reliable electricity and water supply. The report of the business rescue practitioner was vague and unsupported by concrete evidence of new contracts or investor funding. The intervention by the trustees of the Mohamed Khan Family Trust was allowed to cure the locus standi defect, but this did not…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Winding Up
• Financial Distress
• Creditor Priority
• Service On Employees
• Intervention By Trustees

Lifehouse Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd v DCL Interiors CC (17991/2015)

Lifehouse Investments 17 (Pty) Ltd v DCL Interiors CC (17991/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 292 (11 March 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

17991/2015

Judge

W Louw

The court granted provisional winding up against a close corporation after finding unpaid occupational rent, valid statutory demand, and no bar from alleged reciprocal breaches.

• Winding Up Of Close Corporation
• Creditor Locus Standi
• Reciprocal Obligations
• Occupational Rent
• Service On Employees
• Winding-up

Afgri Bedryfs Beperk v Gribnitz (61152/2012)

Afgri Bedryfs Beperk v Gribnitz (61152/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 186 (3 April 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61152/2012

Judge

H J Fabricius

The court found that the respondent was factually insolvent, as he failed to pay substantial amounts due under various credit agreements and instalment sale agreements, and his denials were not substantiated by credible evidence. The applicant's locus standi was established through valid cession agreements. Prescription was interrupted by acknowledgment of liability, and the defence of reckless lending was rejected due to thorough credit assessments based on information provided by the respondent. The court held that service of the application on the respondent's employees was reasonably like…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration
• Actual Insolvency
• Credit Agreements
• Prescription
• Reckless Lending
• Service On Employees

Investec Bank Limited v Stratford and Another (10394/2012)

Investec Bank Limited v Stratford and Another (10394/2012) [2013] ZAWCHC 207 (14 August 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10394/2012

Judge

Mantame

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim against the respondents, who had committed acts of insolvency and failed to provide a full account of their financial affairs. Despite respondents' assertion that their estate was worth only R780,000, the court accepted that numerous transactions and interests in various entities required investigation by a trustee, which could reveal further assets for creditors. The court held that service of the petition on domestic employees by leaving it on the kitchen table constituted substantial compliance with section 9(4A) of the…

Source excerpt

• Final Sequestration
• Advantage To Creditors
• Service On Employees
• Constitutional Challenge
• Prescription Of Claims
• Fair Labour Practices

Hannover Reinsurance Group Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Gungudoo and Another (2009/35648)

Hannover Reinsurance Group Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another v Gungudoo and Another (2009/35648) [2011] ZAGPJHC 84; 2012 (1) SA 125 (GSJ) (21 April 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2009/35648

Judge

M Tsoka

High Court confirmed final sequestration after finding substantial compliance with section 9(4A), factual insolvency, and no bona fide dispute of the debt.

• Provisional Sequestration
• Service On Employees
• Insolvency Act Section 9 4a
• Breach Of Mandate
• Misappropriation Of Assets
• Advantage Of Creditors

Business Partners Ltd v Quick Leap Investments 221 (Pty) Ltd (6168/2010)

Business Partners Ltd v Quick Leap Investments 221 (Pty) Ltd (6168/2010) [2010] ZAKZDHC 65 (26 November 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

6168/2010

Judge

K Swain

The court found that the applicant had complied with section 346(4A)(a)(ii) of the Companies Act, as it was common cause that the respondent had no employees. The respondent's attempt to withdraw its admission regarding the absence of employees was rejected as a dilatory tactic. The respondent's financial position was dire, with undisputed evidence of failure to repay a substantial loan, arrears on municipal accounts, and inability to pay debts. The court held that the respondent was unable to pay its debts within the meaning of section 345(1)(c) of the Companies Act. An adjournment to allow…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Compliance With Companies Act
• Service On Employees
• Company Inability To Pay Debts