Gent and Another v Du Plessis (1029/2019) [2020] ZASCA 184 (24 December 2020)

Gent and Another v Du Plessis (1029/2019) [2020] ZASCA 184 (24 December 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of a cross-appeal, the respondent was not entitled to seek a variation of the order of the court below to his advantage and the appellant's detriment. The court found that the statutory requirements of section 163(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 were not met, as the conduct of the majority shareholder, Ms Gent, did not amount to oppression or unfair prejudice. The removal of Mr du Plessis as director was validly effected at a properly constituted shareholders' meeting, and his dismissal as general manager followed a disciplinary hearing for misconduct. The court concluded that the full court misdirected itself by ordering Ms Gent to...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 184
Parties
Appellant: Anita Julia Gent; Appellant: Bonnox (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Peter Daniël Jacobs du Plessis
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 December 2020
Case Number
1029/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the appeal with costs.
Judges
Mbha, Van der Merwe, Makgoka, Weiner, Sutherland
Legal Topics
Section 163 Companies Act, Oppressive Conduct, Shareholder Disputes, Majority Shareholder Rights, Removal of Director
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Section 163 Companies Act Oppressive Conduct Shareholder Disputes Majority Shareholder Rights Removal of Director

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anita Julia Gent

Appellant

Bonnox (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Peter Daniël Jacobs du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to a variation of the order of the court below in the absence of a cross-appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of section 163(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 were met to justify relief for oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct.
  3. 3 Whether the majority shareholder's conduct amounted to oppression or unfair prejudice under section 163.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, in the absence of a cross-appeal, the respondent was not entitled to seek a variation of the order of the court below to his advantage and the appellant's detriment. The court found that the statutory requirements of section 163(1) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 were not met, as the conduct of the majority shareholder, Ms Gent, did not amount to oppression or unfair prejudice. The removal of Mr du Plessis as director was validly effected at a properly constituted shareholders' meeting, and his dismissal as general manager followed a disciplinary hearing for misconduct. The court concluded that the full court misdirected itself by ordering Ms Gent to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the appeal with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and replaced by: 'The appeal is dismissed with costs.'