Abstract

In the unreported case of Cassim NO v Bombela Concession Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd ((ZAGPJHC) case no 006216/25 of 16 May 2025), the court analysed and interpreted s 136(2)(b) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, expanding the scope and effect of the cancellation power of the business rescue practitioner. The court adopted a substance test that ultimately allows the business rescue practitioner to cancel obligations in terms of a pre-commencement contract that were amended postcommencement. This unreported case builds on the still-developing legal discourse concerning the cancellation power of the business rescue practitioner, as previously considered in Du Toit v Azari Wind (Pty) Ltd 2022 (2) SA 510 (WCC). However, it raises important interpretational concerns, particularly regarding the potential purposive overreach of the court in pursuit of a desired outcome.