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
ABSA Bank Limited v Marotex (Pty) Ltd (In Business Rescue) and Others (31562/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 33 (20 January 2025)
The High Court held that Marotex’s appeal had lapsed, so Teffo J’s orders remained in force and the respondents had to comply with prior filing orders.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Petezake (2023-022639) [2024] ZAGPJHC 166 (26 February 2024)
The High Court granted judgment against a surety after a loan was called up and ordered the principal debtor company into final winding-up for commercial insolvency.
Ngcongo and Another v Voltex (Pty) Limited (21/9813) [2021] ZAGPJHC 714 (25 June 2021)
The High Court granted a stay of execution of a winding-up order pending rescission proceedings, finding urgency, a prima facie case, and no adequate alternative remedy.
Rooplal NO v Firmanox Proprietary Limited (43508/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 288 (20 November 2020)
The High Court granted a final winding-up order against Firmanox after finding VBS Mutual Bank was a creditor and Firmanox’s dispute was not reasonable.
Essack v Resfam Investments CC and Others (81703/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 145 (14 April 2020)
The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a business rescue and winding-up order, finding no basis to undo the liquidation and awarding costs.
Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Green Willows Properties 153 (Pty) Ltd (15231/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 373 (4 December 2012)
The High Court granted Standard Bank a provisional liquidation order against Green Willows Properties 153 (Pty) Ltd, finding it unable to pay its debts.
Active Cooling v Lefutshe Electrical and Construction CC (3838/2011) [2012] ZAECPEHC 55 (10 August 2012)
The court found that the respondent's repeated undertakings to effect payment in settlement of the debt constituted an acknowledgement of liability, which interrupted the running of prescription under section 14(1) of the Prescription Act. The respondent failed to dispute the applicant's factual averments and only raised prescription as a defence. The court held that there was no merit in the submission that the matter should be referred for oral evidence, as the applicant's case remained unanswered. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to a final winding-up order against the respondent.
Source excerpt
Explore more
