This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.
In August 2025 the High Court confirmed that WhatsApp messages can be decisive evidence in commercial disputes, particularly where the parties’ intentions and admissions are in question. The court granted a provisional liquidation order against the respondent, finding that the applicant was a creditor, the debt was not genuinely disputed, and the respondent was unable to pay its debts.
The dispute arose from an agreement for the respondent to drill boreholes on the applicant’s farm. While the first two boreholes were successful, the third encountered technical complications. The applicant rendered invoices for the work, but the respondent made only sporadic payments, leaving a substantial balance unpaid. The applicant launched liquidation proceedings, claiming over R500,000, with some payments made after the application was issued.
The court addressed four key questions: whether the applicant was a creditor, whether the claim was genuinely disputed, whether the respondent was unable to pay its debts, and whether the court should exercise its discretion against granting liquidation.
WhatsApp exchanges between the parties were central to the finding that the applicant was a creditor. The messages showed repeated admissions by the respondent’s director that payment would be made, with no genuine explanation for the delays or for withholding payment. The court found that the invoices, WhatsApp messages, and part payments established the applicant’s standing.
The respondent’s defences, including alleged defects in the drilling and a counterclaim for damages, were found to be contrived and unsupported by the contemporaneous record. The court was not persuaded that the provision of technical reports was reciprocal to the payment obligation, nor that the counterclaim was advanced sincerely. The WhatsApp messages and ongoing payments undermined the respondent’s argument that the debt was not due.
On the question of solvency, the court found that the respondent was unable to pay its debts as they fell due, with communications indicating reliance on incoming payments from clients and difficulties with SARS. The respondent failed to provide adequate evidence of its financial position, despite having months to prepare its affidavit.
The court exercised its discretion narrowly, noting that the potential prejudice to employees and the existence of a counterclaim did not justify refusing the order. The WhatsApp exchanges were decisive, showing indebtedness, lack of a genuine defence, and inability to pay debts.
The judgment confirms that unfiltered contemporaneous records such as WhatsApp messages can be good evidence of the parties’ intentions and admissions. It also reinforces the principle that a creditor is entitled to liquidation where the debt is not genuinely disputed, and the debtor is commercially insolvent.