Basson and Another v Pentagon Financial Solutions (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd and Another (13917/20) [2022] ZAWCHC 45 (14 February 2022)
The court found that the Applicants remain the registered shareholders and owners of their shares in the Respondent companies, as no transfer has been entered in the companies' certificated security registers. The settlement agreement relied upon by the Respondents was rescinded by the Applicants due to fraud, rendering it void from inception. Accordingly, the Applicants retain their beneficial interest and statutory rights under sections 26 and 31 of the Companies Act to access company records. The Trust is properly before the court, as the remaining trustees acted unanimously and the resignation of the third trustee does not invalidate their authority. The Respondents' refusal to...
- Citation
- [2022] ZAWCHC 45
- Parties
- Applicant: Pieter Willem Sasson; Applicant: Legare Besigheids Trust; Respondent: Pentagon Financial Solutions (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 14 February 2022
- Case Number
- 13917/20
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application granted. The Respondents are ordered to provide access to the requested company records and pay ordinary costs of the application. The Respondents' application for punitive costs is dismissed.
- Judges
- Ndita
- Legal Topics
- Companies Act 71 of 2008, Access to Company Records, Locus Standi, Beneficial Interest, Costs Award, Trustee Authority
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pieter Willem Sasson
Applicant
Legare Besigheids Trust
Applicant
Pentagon Financial Solutions (Pretoria) (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Associated Portfolio Solutions (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Do the Applicants have locus standi to bring an application under sections 26 and 31 of the Companies Act?
- 2 Did the Applicants cease to have a beneficial interest in the shares when the shares were sold in terms of the settlement agreement?
- 3 What is the effect of the Applicants' rescission letter of 15 February 2021 on the agreement for the sale of the shares?
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicants remain the registered shareholders and owners of their shares in the Respondent companies, as no transfer has been entered in the companies' certificated security registers. The settlement agreement relied upon by the Respondents was rescinded by the Applicants due to fraud, rendering it void from inception. Accordingly, the Applicants retain their beneficial interest and statutory rights under sections 26 and 31 of the Companies Act to access company records. The Trust is properly before the court, as the remaining trustees acted unanimously and the resignation of the third trustee does not invalidate their authority. The Respondents' refusal to...
Court Disposition
Application granted. The Respondents are ordered to provide access to the requested company records and pay ordinary costs of the application. The Respondents' application for punitive costs is dismissed.
Orders
- The First Respondent is directed to comply with its duty under section 26(1) and (4) of the Companies Act by providing access to information as requested in Form CoR 24 dated 17 July 2020.
- The Second Respondent is directed to comply with its duty under section 26(5) of the Companies Act by providing the Second Applicant an opportunity to inspect and copy the information requested in Form CoR 24 dated 14 July 2020.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment