Supreme Court: Multiple Cases Alone Cannot Justify an Externment Order  ||  Supreme Court: Certiorari Can Quash a Tribunal Decision That is Grossly Perverse  ||  Supreme Court: Informant’s Consent is Not Required to Quash a Case Settled With the Victim  ||  Madras High Court: False Posts Against a Minister are Not an Offence Without Intent to Cause Alarm  ||  Delhi High Court: Police Cannot Pick and Choose Among Accused Persons for Arrest  ||  J&K High Court: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 and are Outside Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Calcutta High Court: Third Parties Can Challenge Inaction Against Unauthorised Construction  ||  Madras High Court: Being an Advocate Does Not Mean a Person Cannot Commit an Offence  ||  Delhi High Court: Husband Cannot Reopen Settled Marital Disputes to Avoid Maintenance Liability  ||  Calcutta High Court: State Cannot Deny CRMI Seats to Foreign Medical Graduates Citing Stipend Costs    

The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service vs. Nyhonyha and Others - (18 May 2023)

Interference would be called for, if the exercise of the discretion was based on a misdirection of fact or a wrong principle of law

Company

Present is an appeal by the Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (SARS) against an order setting aside the winding-up of Regiments Capital (Pty) Ltd (Regiments). The issues before the present Court is whether the setting aside of a winding-up under Section 354 of the Companies Act, 1973 constitutes the exercise of a discretion in the strict sense (true discretion); and whether Regiments was commercially solvent at the time of the hearing in the court a quo.

The scope for interference on appeal with the exercise of a true discretion is limited. The question is not whether the appeal court would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the discretion was exercised properly. For present purposes, it suffices to say that interference would be called for if the exercise of the discretion was based on a misdirection of fact or a wrong principle of law.

A true discretion is one that provides a court with a range of permissible options. The test for setting aside a winding-up under Section 354 on the basis of subsequent events, is whether the applicant has proved facts that show that it is unnecessary or undesirable for the winding up to continue. This does not involve a choice between permissible alternatives. The test is satisfied or it is not. Therefore, it followed that the decision of the court a quo did not constitute the exercise of a true discretion.

It is trite that, the admissibility of an opinion as evidence in a court of law depends on whether it is expressed by an expert in the field. On Regiments’ solvency, the present Court held that on the evidence before the court a quo, Regiments was both factually and commercially insolvent. On these facts, there was no basis for finding that the continuation of its winding-up was unnecessary or undesirable.

Tags : WINDING UP   DISCRETION   SOLVENCY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved