South Africa Case Law

Toothrock Investments CC v Dzothe Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (20/27162)

Toothrock Investments CC v Dzothe Property Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (20/27162) [2023] ZAGPJHC 562 (25 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/27162

Judge

C.E Thompson

The court found that the applicant became the owner of the shares upon the cession being effected, and the only outstanding requirement was the administrative registration of the transfer in the share register. This administrative act does not constitute a debt capable of prescription under the Prescription Act. The prescription defence therefore fails. The non-joinder defence was dismissed as Dzothe Investments (Pty) Ltd was neither the holder of the shares nor affected by the relief sought. Regarding authority, the applicant's version that both Marais and Langa represented the first respond…

Source excerpt

• Cession Of Shares
• Authority Of Signatories
• Prescription
• Joinder
• Companies Act Section 51

Diocesan Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in SA, Cape Orange Diocese and Another v Khumalo and Others (1022/2019)

Diocesan Council of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in SA, Cape Orange Diocese and Another v Khumalo and Others (1022/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 46 (2 April 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1022/2019

Judge

Mamosebo

The High Court granted a final interdict protecting ELCSA Cape Orange Diocese governance, stopping an ex-pastor and council members from acting without authority.

• Final Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Church Governance
• Authority Of Signatories
• Bank Account Control
• Final-interdict

Chemical Industries National Provident Fund v Tristar Investments (Pty) Ltd (960/2016)

Chemical Industries National Provident Fund v Tristar Investments (Pty) Ltd (960/2016) [2017] ZASCA 184 (6 December 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

960/2016

Judges

Cachalia, Bosielo, Tshiqi, Mathopo, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the representatives of the Fund had authority to sign the investment consulting agreement, as the Board's practice was to adopt resolutions by consensus and the requisite two-thirds support was achieved. Rule 13.6.8 did not require a formal vote, and the appointment of Tristar was valid. The argument that the agreement was ultra vires the Fund's rules was rejected; rule 13.7.5 allowed the Fund to terminate appointments lawfully but did not invalidate fixed-term contracts. The court found that Tristar was entitled to accrued income for the unexpired period…

Source excerpt

• Authority Of Signatories
• Ultra Vires Contract
• Investment Consulting Agreement
• Damages Assessment
• Contractual Repudiation

Africast (Pty) Limited v Pangbourne Properties Limited (359/2013)

Africast (Pty) Limited v Pangbourne Properties Limited (359/2013) [2014] ZASCA 33; [2014] 3 All SA 653 (SCA) (28 March 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

359/2013

Judges

Lewis, Mhlantla, Bosielo, Theron, Mathopo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a suspensive condition can lapse if not fulfilled timeously, even where the parties later acted as if the contract bound them.

• Suspensive Condition
• Contract Conclusion
• Authority Of Signatories
• Repudiation
• Damages For Breach
• Ratification