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
Groenewald (M377/2022), Ex parte [2023] ZANWHC 121 (21 July 2023)
The High Court dismissed an ex parte application for voluntary surrender after finding the applicant had not shown sufficient facts or creditor advantage.
Forgeweld Engineering (Pty) Ltd v Cronje (89569/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 176 (22 March 2022)
The court dismissed an application for voluntary surrender, finding late, unsupported replying papers, material non-disclosure, no bona fide basis, and no advantage to creditors.
In the Ex Parte Application of David Makopole Mashengwama (2305/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 41 (28 July 2021)
The court held that failure to file a statement of affairs at the local magistrate’s office under the Insolvency Act is a material defect, not a formal irregularity.
Matthew and Another (41680/2016), Ex parte [2016] ZAGPPHC 882 (22 September 2016)
The court refused voluntary surrender and sequestration, finding the applicants knew their income had fallen yet kept taking loans and credit, making the insolvency self-inflicted.
Fuls and Others (28761/16; 36624/16; 36626/16; 36636/16), Ex parte [2016] ZAGPPHC 490; 2016 (6) SA 128 (GP) (23 June 2016)
The High Court dismissed ex parte voluntary surrender applications, holding that the applicants failed to show advantage to creditors and had not disclosed debt review options under the NCA.
Ex parte: Smith (991/12) [2013] ZANWHC 26 (7 March 2013)
The High Court refused a postponement in a voluntary surrender application and struck the matter from the roll with costs, citing procedural default and lack of benefit to creditors.
Ex parte: Opperman (59461/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 599 (5 May 2010)
The application for voluntary surrender was refused because the applicant failed to disclose material facts, including a pending judgment debt and the liquidation of a company listed as an asset. This lack of full and frank disclosure undermined the applicant's bona fides and violated the requirements for ex parte applications. Additionally, the valuation of immovable property did not meet judicial standards, providing a further ground for refusal. The intervening creditors' objections were upheld, and the applicant was ordered to pay their costs.
Source excerpt
Explore more
