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
Marais and Another v Nortiger Logistics-SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (14866/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 498 (21 May 2025)
The court set aside the sale of a crane after finding a prior cession invalid and ineffective to transfer ownership, making the disposition voidable in liquidation.
Van Zyl N.O and Another v Cometa Trading (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (4425/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 112 (17 March 2025)
The court dismissed Cometa Trading’s application for leave to appeal against a judgment setting aside a post-winding-up disposition by Senqu Coal Trading.
Klein and Others v Sasfin Bank Limited and Others (14639/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1320 (31 December 2024)
High Court trial over an alleged collusive disposition under section 31 of the Insolvency Act failed. The plaintiffs proved undervaluation, but not fraudulent collusion.
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
Voigt NO and Another v EGH IP (Pty) Ltd and Others (1076/2021) [2021] ZAECGHC 40 (4 May 2021)
The court found that the applicants failed to justify the urgency of the application. The delay in launching the application after being advised to act urgently constituted self-created urgency. The truncated timeframes imposed on the respondents were unjustified given the complexity and volume of the papers. The respondents were prejudiced by the limited time to prepare their answer, while the applicants afforded themselves ample time. The founding papers did not establish sufficient grounds for urgency, and the matter warranted being struck from the roll with costs. The court emphasized tha…
Source excerpt
Argent Industrial Limited v Gainsford NO and Others (AR473/2015) [2018] ZAKZPHC 37 (27 August 2018)
The court found that the GAT did not have title to the stolen money deposited into its account, except for the R630,000 which was not stolen. The payment from the GAT to Argent was not authorised by a majority of trustees and was inconsistent with the trust's purposes. The disposition to Argent within two years of the GAT's sequestration was not made for value and met the jurisdictional requirements of section 26 of the Insolvency Act, rendering it voidable. Argent failed to prove it acted as agent for SOC or that it was indemnified, as its mandate originated from within Argent and BMI, not S…
Source excerpt
Seaways (Pty) Ltd t/a South African Express Line v Rubin (31419/2010) [2013] ZAGPJHC 118 (24 May 2013)
Appeal upheld against refusal of final sequestration. The court found a reasonable prospect that sequestration could benefit creditors through possible voidable-disposition challenges.
Kotze v Axal Properties 2 CC and Others (2011/35866) [2012] ZAGPJHC 119 (14 June 2012)
The High Court held that Mega Super Cement CC remained a trader under the Insolvency Act and that the applicant’s judgment debt was connected to its business.
Zwarts v Janse van Rensburg NO and Others (590/10) [2011] ZASCA 70 (25 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal about repayments from a pyramid scheme liquidation, holding the appellant contracted with the companies, not Ms Prinsloo personally.
PG Bison Limited v Johannesburg Glasswork (Pty) Ltd and Others (7026/05 , 7026/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 48; 2006 (4) SA 535 (W) (17 May 2006)
The court found that the applicant had unreasonably delayed in instituting review proceedings against the Master's expungement of its claim, having been aware of the expungement and the reasons for it for over a year before approaching the court. The delay caused prejudice to other creditors and was not justified by the applicant's alleged lack of notification. On the merits, the court held that the Master acted within his powers under section 45(3) of the Insolvency Act by expunging the claim based on the liquidator's report that it constituted a voidable disposition. The Master did not purp…
Source excerpt
Explore more
