Intramed (Pty) Ltd (In Liquidation) and Another v The Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others

Macmed Health Care Limited was the holding company of 90 subsidiaries including Intramed (Pty) Ltd. Both companies were liquidated in 1999-2000 due to inability to pay debts. On 10 May 2000, Standard Bank proved a claim of R107,728,483.64 against Intramed based on a suretyship for Macmed's indebtedness. On 2 November 2000, the liquidators requested the Master to expunge the bank's claim on grounds that underlying documents lacked necessary company authority. On 12 January 2001, the Master expunged the claim. The liquidators then sued the bank in the Johannesburg High Court. The bank counterclaimed for the expunged amount. On 20 August 2004, Claassen J dismissed the liquidators' claim, upheld the bank's counterclaim, ordered payment of R107,728,463.64 plus interest at the prescribed rate "a tempore morae," and declared the claim secured by cession of book debts. The bank subsequently received dividends totaling R128,124,478.36. In April 2005, the bank applied to remove the liquidators. Intramed and Macmed challenged the bank's locus standi, arguing it was no longer a creditor.

• Whether the bank had locus standi to apply for removal of liquidators
• Whether the bank remained a creditor of Intramed after receiving dividends
• The proper interpretation of the phrase 'a tempore morae' in the context of the Johannesburg High Court judgment
• From what date interest should run on the bank's claim - from date of judgment, date of proof of claim, or date of liquidation

The appeal was dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.

The binding legal principle is that when interpreting the phrase "a tempore morae" in a judgment, the court must consider the context and particularly when the debtor became aware of or could ascertain the precise amount due. Where a creditor's claim in liquidation has been expunged and subsequently reinstated by court judgment, and the judgment awards interest "a tempore morae," this means interest runs from the date the debtor had knowledge of the quantum of the claim - namely the date of proof of claim at the creditors' meeting - not from the date of judgment. This principle applies where the amount is liquidated and ascertainable, distinguishing such cases from claims for unliquidated damages where interest typically runs from judgment date. A party remains a creditor for purposes of locus standi to apply for removal of liquidators if, after calculation of interest from the proper mora date, amounts remain outstanding.

The court made several obiter observations. First, it noted that giving effect to its interpretation might result in interest at 15.5% being awarded on property not subject to security, exceeding the 8% rate in section 103(2) of the Insolvency Act, but stated this issue was not before the court and should be dealt with in the liquidation process. Second, the court commented extensively on the liquidators' conduct, noting their pattern of litigation denying authority despite how the companies conducted business, their unsuccessful litigation against both Standard Bank and BOE Bank on similar grounds, and the dispute over their fees (initially claimed at R21.2 million, reduced by the Master to R3.25 million, with unsuccessful review applications resulting in personal costs orders). The court observed it appeared Intramed and Macmed were used as appellants to shield the liquidators from another personal costs order, and seriously considered ordering costs de bonis propriis but decided against it considering Macmed was a creditor and Intramed had sufficient interest.

This case is significant for establishing how courts should interpret the phrase "a tempore morae" in liquidation contexts, particularly where a claim has been expunged and subsequently reinstated by court judgment. It clarifies that in such circumstances, interest runs from the date when the debtor had knowledge of the precise quantum of the claim (the proof of claim date), not merely from the date of judgment. The case also provides guidance on the distinction between liquidated and unliquidated claims for purposes of calculating interest. It demonstrates the court's approach to determining locus standi of creditors in applications to remove liquidators, which depends on whether the applicant remains a creditor. The judgment also illustrates judicial consideration of ordering costs de bonis propriis against liquidators who engage in meritless litigation, balancing this against creditors' interests.