South Africa Case Law

Rent a Tank JHB (Pty) Limited v Fuelgiants (Pty) Limited (2025/012156)

Rent a Tank JHB (Pty) Limited v Fuelgiants (Pty) Limited (2025/012156) [2025] ZAGPJHC 517 (19 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/012156

Judge

B M Gilbert

The court held that the statutory requirements for effective notice to respondents, employees, and trade unions in liquidation and sequestration applications are mandatory and have been in force for over two decades. The purpose is to ensure that all affected parties are informed and can participate in proceedings that have far-reaching consequences, including the loss of control over assets and the establishment of a concursus creditorum. In the matters before the court, applicants routinely failed to comply with these requirements, relying on service at registered addresses that were not pr…

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Procedure
• Statutory Notice Requirements
• Effective Service
• Employee Protection
• Creditor Rights

Intello Capital CC v Sigge Managed Solutions (Pty) Limited (5974/2022)

Intello Capital CC v Sigge Managed Solutions (Pty) Limited (5974/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 173 (6 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5974/2022

Judge

Adams

The court found that Sigge Managed Solutions is commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts to Intello Capital, as evidenced by two written acknowledgments of debt and the absence of a bona fide defence. The respondent's misrepresentation defence was rejected as bad in law and unsupported by the facts. The court held that strict compliance with section 346(4A) of the Companies Act regarding service on employees and trade unions is not an absolute requirement for granting a provisional winding-up order, provided the statutory purpose of notifying employees is substantially achieved. The…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Liquidation
• Commercial Insolvency
• Bona Fide Dispute
• Service On Employees
• Winding Up Procedure

Smith N.O and Another v Karlo Farming (PTY) Ltd (A102/2021)

Smith N.O and Another v Karlo Farming (PTY) Ltd (A102/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 8 (20 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A102/2021

Judges

Musi, Loubser, Pohl

Appeal upheld against refusal of provisional liquidation. The court found the respondent could not show the debt was bona fide disputed and ordered winding-up.

• Provisional Liquidation
• Company Indebtedness
• Creditor Rights
• Commercial Insolvency
• Winding Up Procedure
• Provisional-liquidation

Registrar of Medical Schemes v Health Squared Medical Scheme: In re: Health Squared Medical Scheme v The Registrar of Medical Schemes and Others (2022/015979)

Registrar of Medical Schemes v Health Squared Medical Scheme: In re: Health Squared Medical Scheme v The Registrar of Medical Schemes and Others (2022/015979) [2022] ZAGPJHC 711 (20 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/015979

Judge

Crutchfield

The court found that the Scheme was in an unsound financial condition, with its financial position deteriorating rapidly and unable to meet statutory solvency requirements. The trustees failed to provide adequate notice to members and the regulator, prejudicing beneficiaries and exposing them to risks. The Registrar's concerns were legitimate and the appointment of a curator was necessary to protect beneficiaries, facilitate migration to other schemes, and ensure proper investigation and disclosure regarding the Scheme's failure. The interim order was justified to prevent further prejudice to…

Source excerpt

• Curatorship Of Medical Scheme
• Medical Schemes Act
• Protection Of Beneficiaries
• Financial Institutions Act
• Fiduciary Duties
• Winding Up Procedure

All Plant (PTY) Limited v Gebane Investments CC (994/2021)

All Plant (PTY) Limited v Gebane Investments CC (994/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 535 (12 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

994/2021

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that although the respondent admitted the debt, it raised a bona fide dispute on reasonable grounds by asserting a counterclaim for damages. The Plascon-Evans rule required the court to accept the respondent's version unless it was clearly untenable, which was not the case here. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondent was liable for the amount claimed at this stage, and the application for final liquidation was dismissed. Costs were awarded to the respondent on the ordinary party and party scale.

Source excerpt

• Company Liquidation
• Bona Fide Dispute
• Counterclaim
• Winding Up Procedure

Firstrand Bank Limited v Gigitrans (Pty) Limited (1167/2019)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Gigitrans (Pty) Limited (1167/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 65 (19 August 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

1167/2019

Judge

Olsen

The High Court granted a final winding-up order against Gigatrans (Pty) Limited after finding unpaid debts, rejecting a referral to oral evidence, and dismissing constitutional objections.

• Company Liquidation
• Creditor Rights
• Misrepresentation
• Insolvency Act
• Constitutional Challenge To Insolvency
• Winding Up Procedure

Mthatha Mall (Pty) Ltd v Tititi Boutique (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) (521/2020)

Mthatha Mall (Pty) Ltd v Tititi Boutique (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) (521/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 75 (30 June 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

521/2020

Judge

G H Bloem

The court suspended an eviction application against a company in liquidation because no liquidator had been appointed and statutory notice could not yet be given.

• Company Liquidation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Winding Up Procedure
• Notice To Liquidator
• Company-liquidation
• Eviction-proceedings

Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Moodliar and Others Kusaga Taka Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gore and Others (2688/2019 & 5500/2019; 2687/2019 & 5499/2019)

Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC v Moodliar and Others Kusaga Taka Consulting (Pty) Ltd v Gore and Others (2688/2019 & 5500/2019; 2687/2019 & 5499/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 110; [2019] 4 All SA 812 (WCC); 2020 (1) SA 632 (WCC) (26 June 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2688/2019 & 5500/2019; 2687/2019 & 5499/2019

Judge

Le Grange

The court held that liquidators are not entitled to retain company funds for their fees pending taxation or agreement by the Master. Upon discharge from liquidation, liquidators must immediately deliver all assets to the company or its directors, and have no lien or security over company assets for their remuneration. The Fourth Respondent does not hold the funds as a stakeholder, as there was no competing claim or clear tripartite agreement. The transfer of funds to the attorneys' trust account did not contravene section 394(1) of the Companies Act 1973, as the funds were invested in an inte…

Source excerpt

• Liquidator Remuneration
• Companies Act 1973
• Stakeholder Arrangement
• Winding Up Procedure
• Fiduciary Duties
• Declaratory Relief

Trustees for the Time Being of the Bermack Trust ( NO IT 1730/1996) and Another v Patel N.O and Another (9282/2014)

Trustees for the Time Being of the Bermack Trust ( NO IT 1730/1996) and Another v Patel N.O and Another (9282/2014) [2014] ZAWCHC 105 (8 July 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9282/2014

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court postponed a liquidator-removal application, consolidated it with related liquidation matters, and authorised the co-liquidator to act alone pending hearing.

• Liquidator Removal
• Conflict Of Interest
• Winding Up Procedure
• Costs In Liquidation
• Creditor Dispute
• Liquidator-removal

ABSA Bank Ltd v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South African and Others, ABSA Bank Ltd v Voigro Investment 19 CC (8250/12, 6601/2012)

ABSA Bank Ltd v Companies and Intellectual Property Commission of South African and Others, ABSA Bank Ltd v Voigro Investment 19 CC (8250/12, 6601/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 182; [2013] 2 All SA 137 (WCC) (14 November 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8250/12

Judge

Henney

The court held that it does not have the power to reinstate the registration of a deregistered close corporation under section 83(4)(a) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. The statutory scheme provides that reinstatement must be effected administratively by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission under section 82(4), subject to compliance with prescribed requirements. Section 83(4)(a) applies only to dissolution following winding-up, not to deregistration for failure to file annual returns. The relief sought by the applicant, including restoration of ownership of immovable property an…

Source excerpt

• Deregistration Of Close Corporation
• Restoration Of Registration
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Bona Vacantia
• Winding Up Procedure