Motheo Multimedia and Another v Selebedi and Others (637/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 46 (10 March 2016)
The court found that the meeting of 6 December 2015 was not validly convened because the constitution required at least seven days written notice to all members, which was not given. Only those who attended the disrupted AGM on 28 November 2015 were invited, and the invitation for the 6 December meeting was sent only three days prior. As a result, the respondents were not validly elected as directors, and any decisions taken by them in that capacity are invalid. The persons previously listed as directors remain in office. The banking account of the applicants is to be regularised, with new signatories appointed subject to the applicants' attorneys' approval. No order as to costs was made...
- Citation
- [2016] ZAFSHC 46
- Parties
- Applicant: Motheo Multimedia; Applicant: Motheo FM; Respondent: Konstable Selebedi; Respondent: Pule Mangonyane; Respondent: Dineo Diseko; Respondent: Motsatsi Mothupi; Respondent: First National Bank (FNB)
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 March 2016
- Case Number
- 637/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application and Counter Application
- Outcome
- The counter-application is dismissed. The respondents were not validly elected as directors. The banking account is regularised and new signatories appointed. No order as to costs.
- Judges
- A Kruger
- Legal Topics
- Directors Election, Company Meetings, Notice Requirements, Bank Account Control
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Motheo Multimedia
Applicant
Motheo FM
Applicant
Konstable Selebedi
Respondent
Pule Mangonyane
Respondent
Dineo Diseko
Respondent
Motsatsi Mothupi
Respondent
First National Bank (FNB)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application and Counter Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first, second, third and fourth respondents were validly elected as directors of the first applicant.
- 2 Whether the meeting of 6 December 2015 was validly convened in accordance with the constitution.
- 3 Whether decisions taken by the respondents as purported directors are valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the meeting of 6 December 2015 was not validly convened because the constitution required at least seven days written notice to all members, which was not given. Only those who attended the disrupted AGM on 28 November 2015 were invited, and the invitation for the 6 December meeting was sent only three days prior. As a result, the respondents were not validly elected as directors, and any decisions taken by them in that capacity are invalid. The persons previously listed as directors remain in office. The banking account of the applicants is to be regularised, with new signatories appointed subject to the applicants' attorneys' approval. No order as to costs was made...
Court Disposition
The counter-application is dismissed. The respondents were not validly elected as directors. The banking account is regularised and new signatories appointed. No order as to costs.
Orders
- The election of the first, second, third and fourth respondents as directors of the first applicant at the meeting of 6 December 2015 is set aside.
- All decisions taken by the first, second, third and fourth respondents in their purported capacity as directors of the first applicant are set aside.
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