South Africa Case Law

Investec Bank Limited v MFBK Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (D11428/2021)

Investec Bank Limited v MFBK Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others (D11428/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 15 (25 April 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D11428/2021

Judge

Sipunzi AJ

The court found that all requirements for lis alibi pendens were satisfied: the same parties, cause of action, and subject matter were involved in both the present application and the pending Gauteng proceedings. Allowing the application to proceed would duplicate litigation and risk inconsistent outcomes, particularly for the business rescue practitioner who is central to both disputes. The applicant failed to provide sufficient grounds to justify proceeding in parallel, and no evidence supported its claim that the Gauteng proceedings were brought for ulterior motives. The court upheld the p…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Termination Of Business Rescue
• Affected Persons Rights
• Costs Award

Louis and Others v Glaum and Others (5225/2020)

Louis and Others v Glaum and Others (5225/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 276 (14 January 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5225/2020

Judge

Steyn

The court held that after the creditors rejected the Trust's binding offer to purchase their voting interests, the original business rescue plan remained unamended and stood rejected. Section 153(4) of the Companies Act only requires the practitioner to adjourn the meeting and apply sections 152 and 153 afresh if the binding offer is accepted, resulting in altered voting interests and a revised plan. Since the offer was rejected, there was no basis for further voting or application of section 153. The practitioner acted properly by closing the meeting, and his decision was not irregular or li…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Statutory Interpretation
• Creditors Meeting
• Binding Offer
• Termination Of Business Rescue

Vengadesan NO and Another v Standard Bank Limited (7415/2017)

Vengadesan NO and Another v Standard Bank Limited (7415/2017) [2018] ZAKZDHC 59 (30 November 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7415/2017

Judge

Steyn

The court dismissed an application to release bank funds and granted a counter-application to terminate business rescue after finding no proof the plan was approved.

• Business Rescue
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Approval Of Business Rescue Plan
• Banking Facility Agreement
• Termination Of Business Rescue
• Business-rescue

South African Bank of Athens Limited v Zennies Fresh Fruit CC, Business Partners Limited v Zennies Fresh Fruit CC and Another (7681/17)

South African Bank of Athens Limited v Zennies Fresh Fruit CC, Business Partners Limited v Zennies Fresh Fruit CC and Another (7681/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 11; [2018] 2 All SA 276 (WCC); 2018 (3) SA 278 (WCC) (1 February 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7681/17

Judge

Kusevitsky AJ

The court found that there was no evidence of a vote to approve or reject the business rescue plan at the second creditors' meeting. The meeting was adjourned to allow the practitioner to obtain further information and amend the plan. However, the practitioner failed to publish a revised plan within the statutory period and did not obtain an extension from the major creditors. The delay in finalizing the business rescue proceedings was unreasonable and prejudicial to the rights of creditors. The mechanisms of business rescue are not intended to protect a company indefinitely. Accordingly, the…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Termination Of Business Rescue
• Liquidation
• Suretyship Liability

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Primrose Gold Mines (Pty) Ltd and Others (A932/14)

Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v Primrose Gold Mines (Pty) Ltd and Others (A932/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 737 (23 August 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A932/14

Judges

JR Murphy, P Mabuse, H Fabricius

The High Court held that business rescue ended when the practitioners filed a notice of termination, so they lacked standing to seek Primrose’s liquidation.

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Locus Standi
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Termination Of Business Rescue
• Liquidation Application
• Business-rescue

Absa Bank Limited v Caine N.O. and Another, In Re; Absa Bank Limited v Caine N.O. and Another (3813/2013, 3915/2013)

Absa Bank Limited v Caine N.O. and Another, In Re; Absa Bank Limited v Caine N.O. and Another (3813/2013, 3915/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 46 (2 April 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3813/2013, 3915/2013

Judge

Daffue

The court found that both CRIR Properties CC and RCIR Valuations (Pty) Ltd failed to comply with the mandatory procedural and time requirements of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 in their business rescue proceedings. The initial and subsequent practitioners did not convene meetings or publish plans within the statutory periods, and no extensions were sought or granted. The practitioner acted unlawfully by attempting to amend adopted plans and dispose of assets without authority. The court held that business rescue proceedings cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely to the prejudice of credito…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue Proceedings
• Provisional Liquidation
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Creditors Rights
• Procedural Compliance
• Termination Of Business Rescue