Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Commercial And Corporate [2020] ZAGPJHC 178

Kgoro Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cedar Park Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Others (45678/2018; 5586/2019)

Kgoro Consortium (Pty) Ltd and Another v Cedar Park Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Others (45678/2018; 5586/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 178 (30 June 2020)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
45678/2018; 5586/2019
Judge
Twala M L

The court found that the business rescue application was ill-conceived and lacked a factual foundation for a reasonable prospect of rescuing Cedar Park. The applicants failed to disclose that the sale agreement relied upon was interdicted, and there was no evidence of alternative buyers or funding. Kgoro lacked locus standi, having ceded its shares to Vantage, and Regiments' intervention was a belated attempt to salvage the application. The applicants' conduct was dilatory and intended to delay the inevitable liquidation. The restraint order was irrelevant to the business rescue proceedings,…

Source excerpt

  • Business Rescue
  • Liquidation Proceedings
  • Shareholder Standing
  • Postponement Of Proceedings
  • Punitive Costs
  • Creditor Intervention
Read case analysis
Commercial And Corporate [2016] ZAWCHC 130

Lewis Group Limited v Woollam and Others (9900/2016)

Lewis Group Limited v Woollam and Others (9900/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 130; [2017] 1 All SA 192 (WCC); 2017 (2) SA 547 (WCC) (11 October 2016)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
9900/2016
Judge
Binns-Ward

The court held that Woollam, as a shareholder, has direct standing under s 162 of the Companies Act to seek a declaration of delinquency against directors and therefore cannot ordinarily proceed derivatively under s 165 for the same relief. The rationale for derivative actions is to provide redress where the proper plaintiff (the company) fails to act, which is not applicable when the shareholder can litigate personally. The court found that none of Woollam's grounds of complaint made out a prima facie case of serious misconduct, dishonesty, or gross negligence as required by s 162(5)(c). The…

Source excerpt

  • Derivative Actions
  • Delinquency Of Directors
  • Companies Act 2008
  • Shareholder Standing
  • Vexatious Litigation
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.