Gelderblom and Others v Sandown Bay Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (Reasons) (19605/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 210 (19 May 2025)

Gelderblom and Others v Sandown Bay Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (Reasons) (19605/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 210 (19 May 2025)

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to relief under section 163 of the Companies Act in both their capacities as shareholders and directors. The respondents' conduct in calling the shareholders' meeting was directly linked to the main application and intended to frustrate the applicants' rights. The timing of the meeting notice during the court recess and the respondents' refusal to postpone the meeting rendered the matter urgent. The applicants would suffer irreparable harm if removed as directors before the main application was determined, as reinstatement would be difficult and the respondents held a controlling majority. The balance of convenience...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 210
Parties
Applicant: Tom Gelderblom; Applicant: Christopher Sauls; Applicant: Francois Marais; Respondent: The Sandown Bay Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Philippus May; Respondent: Rudolph Jantjies; Respondent: Adele Baadjies; Respondent: Elton May; Respondent: Erica Gillion (née Carelse)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2025
Case Number
19605/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Urgent Interim Interdict
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining the holding of the shareholders' meeting pending final determination of the main application. Costs awarded against the second to sixth respondents on a party and party scale, including counsel's fees taxed on Scale B.
Judges
P. S. Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Section 163 Companies Act, Oppressive Conduct, Shareholder Rights, Interim Interdict, Urgent Application, Directors Removal
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Section 163 Companies Act Oppressive Conduct Shareholder Rights Interim Interdict Urgent Application Directors Removal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tom Gelderblom

Applicant

Christopher Sauls

Applicant

Francois Marais

Applicant

The Sandown Bay Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Philippus May

Respondent

Rudolph Jantjies

Respondent

Adele Baadjies

Respondent

Elton May

Respondent

Erica Gillion (née Carelse)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Urgent Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent interim interdictory relief restraining the holding of a shareholders' meeting pending the final determination of the main application under section 163 of the Companies Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct in calling the meeting constitutes oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct under section 163.
  3. 3 Whether the urgent application was properly brought under the same case number as the main application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to relief under section 163 of the Companies Act in both their capacities as shareholders and directors. The respondents' conduct in calling the shareholders' meeting was directly linked to the main application and intended to frustrate the applicants' rights. The timing of the meeting notice during the court recess and the respondents' refusal to postpone the meeting rendered the matter urgent. The applicants would suffer irreparable harm if removed as directors before the main application was determined, as reinstatement would be difficult and the respondents held a controlling majority. The balance of convenience...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining the holding of the shareholders' meeting pending final determination of the main application. Costs awarded against the second to sixth respondents on a party and party scale, including counsel's fees taxed on Scale B.

Orders

  • The applicants' non-compliance with the forms and service provided for in the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned and the matter is heard as one of urgency under Rule 6(12).
  • The second to sixth respondents are interdicted and restrained from convening and proceeding with the shareholders' meeting called for 20 January 2025 at 17h00, pending the final determination of the application under section 163 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.