South Africa Case Law

Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v REH Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/17794)

Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v REH Investments (Pty) Ltd (2022/17794) [2025] ZAGPPHC 56 (27 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2022/17794

Judge

EF Dippenaar

The court held that the exceptions must fail. Regarding Claim A, the court found that s 347(1A) of the 1973 Companies Act does not restrict the jurisdiction to the court hearing the winding up application, nor does it require a prior finding of abuse before damages can be claimed. The provision is broad and does not specify timing or forum limitations. The plaintiff's claim, based on the alleged wrongful and intentional institution of winding up proceedings for ulterior purposes, falls within the ambit of s 347(1A). Regarding Claim B, the court found that the particulars of claim, read as a w…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Pleadings
• Delictual Liability
• Director Duties
• Fiduciary Duty
• Abuse Of Process
• Winding Up Applications

Land and Agricultural Development Bank v Phosfert Trading (Pty) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2020/28966)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank v Phosfert Trading (Pty) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2020/28966) [2023] ZAGPJHC 672 (8 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/28966

Judge

B.C. Wanless

The High Court dismissed Phosfert Trading’s application for leave to appeal against a final winding-up order, finding no reasonable prospect of a different outcome.

• Winding Up Applications
• Commercial Insolvency
• Leave To Appeal
• Creditor Claims
• Motion Proceedings
• Leave-to-appeal

Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (Leave to Appeal) (44983/2020)

Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (Leave to Appeal) (44983/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 315 (13 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

44983/2020

Judge

N Davis

The High Court granted leave to appeal against its refusal to wind up SAMA, finding competing interpretations of a prior Labour Court judgment created a compelling reason to appeal.

• Trade Union Status
• Winding Up Applications
• Section 13 Labour Relations Act
• Exercise Of Judicial Discretion
• Leave-to-appeal
• Winding-up-applications

Dalhousie Land Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Ltd and five other cases (49241/12; 43239/12; 49240/12; 49241/12; 29884/12; 64888/12)

Dalhousie Land Corporation (Pty) Ltd and Others v Absa Bank Ltd and five other cases (49241/12; 43239/12; 49240/12; 49241/12; 29884/12; 64888/12) [2016] ZAGPPHC 912 (20 October 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

49241/12

Judge

E Swartz

The High Court varied an earlier interlocutory order, holding it could do so at common law, and allowed the liquidation applications to be set down for hearing.

• Variation Of Interlocutory Orders
• Business Rescue
• Winding Up Applications
• Rule 42
• Locus Standi
• Variation-of-orders

Pearl Construction (Pty) Ltd v Seabo Construction, Plumbing And Business Ventures cc (1597/2013)

Pearl Construction (Pty) Ltd v Seabo Construction, Plumbing And Business Ventures cc (1597/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 206 (19 November 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1597/2013

Judge

J.P. Daffue

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a winding-up matter because the alleged debt was bona fide disputed on reasonable grounds.

• Winding Up Applications
• Bona Fide Dispute
• Creditor Standing
• Leave To Appeal
• Winding-up-applications
• Bona-fide-dispute

Amitrix Investments (Pty) Ltd v Brambilla and Another In re: Brambilla and Another v Pecvest 6 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2012/21951)

Amitrix Investments (Pty) Ltd v Brambilla and Another In re: Brambilla and Another v Pecvest 6 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2012/21951) [2012] ZAGPJHC 276 (29 November 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2012/21951

Judge

AC Dodson

The court held that Building Energy SpA and WBHO Construction (Pty) Limited have a direct and substantial interest in the interlocutory application because the relief sought would require disclosure of a confidential joint venture agreement to a competitor. Their contractual rights regarding confidentiality could be prejudicially affected by the order. As such, they must be joined as parties to the application before the matter can proceed. The court postponed the application sine die and ordered the joinder of Building Energy and WBHO as third and fourth respondents, respectively. The applic…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Confidentiality In Discovery
• Rule 35 12 Production
• Winding Up Applications