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
Muller N.O and Another v Cultigrain (Pty) Ltd (1916/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 115 (17 March 2025)
High Court ruling on void dispositions under section 341(2) of the Companies Act, distinguishing payments for pre- and post-concursus deliveries.
Van Zyl N.O and Another v Cometa Trading (Pty) Ltd (4425/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 368 (14 November 2024)
The court found that the funds in Senqu’s bank account legally belonged to Senqu, as there was no agreement with the bank to treat the funds as Cometa’s. The transfer of R710,763.92 occurred after the commencement of winding-up and thus constituted a voidable disposition under s 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. The fact that the transfer was executed by a representative of Cometa did not alter the legal position, as the law attaches no significance to the identity of the person effecting the transfer in determining ownership. The court declined to exercise its discretion to validate th…
Source excerpt
Harry's Tyres (Pty) Ltd v Symes N.O and Others (T801/2019; CIV APP FB 10/23) [2024] ZANWHC 27 (14 February 2024)
The High Court granted an urgent stay of execution pending a condonation application and appeal, finding the applicant would face substantial prejudice if execution proceeded.
Stewart N.O and Others v Pillary N.O and Another (8855/2017P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 49 (16 September 2022)
The High Court set aside 101 payments made by Carmol Distributors to a trust as voidable dispositions and ordered repayment with interest and costs.
Bester N.O and Others v Massyn (9530/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 204 (15 October 2021)
The applicants, as duly appointed liquidators, have locus standi to pursue the claim. The respondent received payments from the third applicant's bank account without any lawful or valid causa, resulting in unjust enrichment at the expense of the third applicant and its creditors. The respondent's arguments regarding prescription are rejected, as prescription only commenced upon the appointment of the liquidators and the acquisition of knowledge of the relevant facts. The respondent's alleged repayments do not qualify for set-off and must be pursued as concurrent claims against the liquidated…
Source excerpt
Vilcor Enterprises CC v Burnett (24222/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 442 (8 July 2021)
The court granted a provisional sequestration order, finding a prima facie liquidated claim, acts of insolvency, and advantage to creditors.
Strydom and Another v Snowball Wealth (Pty) Limited and Others (10287/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 103 (11 September 2020)
The court held that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim do not disclose a cause of action under section 26(1) of the Insolvency Act. The facts pleaded show that the shares were sold for a price, which, although below market value, constitutes value in the ordinary sense and is neither illusory nor nominal. Section 26(1) is not triggered by dispositions for inadequate value, but only by those for no value or illusory/nominal value. The authorities relied upon by the plaintiffs to equate inadequate value with no value are outdated or misapplied. The exception is upheld, and the claim is set as…
Source excerpt
Hyde Construction CC v K2013046547 (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd and Others (9179/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 31 (29 April 2020)
The court held that Blue Cloud was a trader under the Insolvency Act, set aside the property sale and bond registration as against Hyde Construction, and ordered costs.
Engelbrecht N.O and Others v Mohedien (2717/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 39 (31 March 2016)
The High Court refused to compel further particulars but ordered discovery under Rule 35(3), finding the defendant’s discovery response was not compliant.
Gainsford N.O. and Others v Tanzer Transport (Pty) Ltd, In Re; Gainsford N.O. and Others v Tanzer Transport (Pty) Limited and Others (076/2013) [2014] ZASCA 32; 2014 (3) SA 468 (SCA); [2014] 3 All SA 21 (SCA) (28 March 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the liquidators were entitled to institute proceedings in their own names or in the name of the company in liquidation, as their actions were always in their representative capacity and for the benefit of creditors. The resolution passed by creditors authorising the liquidators to recover outstanding debts was sufficiently broad to encompass proceedings to recover voidable dispositions. The payments made by the company to Tanzer after the commencement of winding-up were void under s 341(2) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, and Tanzer was ordered to repay t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
