South Africa Case Law

Mahanyelo N.O and Others v Venter (116098/23)

Mahanyelo N.O and Others v Venter (116098/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 496 (16 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

116098/23

Judge

N L Moila

The court found that the plaintiffs' particulars of claim contain all the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action against the defendant. The allegations provide sufficient detail regarding the liquidation, the defendant's role as director, and the alleged fraudulent conduct. The defendant's complaints relate to facta probantia (evidence) rather than facta probanda (material facts required to be pleaded). The court accepted the pleaded facts as true and held that, on any reasonable interpretation, the particulars of claim disclose a cause of action. The exception was therefore dismiss…

Source excerpt

• Exception To Particulars Of Claim
• Companies Act Liability
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Fraudulent Trading
• Director Liability

Arioscan (Pty) Ltd t.a Nico's Engineering v Marlie (247/2021)

Arioscan (Pty) Ltd t.a Nico's Engineering v Marlie (247/2021) [2024] ZAWCHC 374 (18 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

247/2021

Judge

A Bhoopchand

The High Court dismissed an exception to particulars of claim, holding that the plaintiff pleaded a statutory Companies Act claim against a former director.

• Director Fiduciary Duties
• Companies Act Liability
• Exception Procedure
• Statutory Claim For Loss
• Exception-to-particulars
• Companies-act

Wolmer v Mastertrade 286 (Proprietary) Limited (2013/45428)

Wolmer v Mastertrade 286 (Proprietary) Limited (2013/45428) [2024] ZAGPJHC 146 (21 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/45428

Judge

SC Mia

The High Court granted separation of a special plea on locus standi under rule 33(4) and stayed the remainder of the action pending that decision.

• Separation Of Issues
• Locus Standi
• Companies Act Liability
• Reflective Loss
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Locus-standi

Maharaj v Strate (Pty) Ltd and Others (21/48263)

Maharaj v Strate (Pty) Ltd and Others (21/48263) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1095 (26 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/48263

Judge

Turner

The court held that the particulars of claim for Claim A and Claim B, when read in a manner most favourable to the plaintiff, disclose causes of action. The quantification of damages and lack of particularity are matters for trial and do not justify upholding the exception at this stage. The court found that Claim C, which attempts to plead a delictual claim for repudiation of contract, does not disclose a cause of action as South African law does not permit a delictual claim where the negligence alleged is a breach of contract. Regarding Claim D, the court held that section 76(2) and section…

Source excerpt

• Protected Disclosures Act
• Breach Of Employment Contract
• Quantification Of Contractual Damages
• Delictual Liability
• Director Fiduciary Duties
• Companies Act Liability

Mirchandani v Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd and Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mirchandani (802/2020, 813/2020)

Mirchandani v Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd and Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd v Mirchandani (802/2020, 813/2020) [2022] ZASCA 58 (22 April 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

802/2020, 813/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mocumie, Mbatha, Tsoka, Weiner

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Unica Iron & Steel (Pty) Ltd failed to prove that the profit share agreement contained any express, tacit, or implied term requiring compliance with NEMA. The evidence showed that non-compliance with environmental legislation was a deliberate decision made by all directors, not solely by Mr Mirchandani. The claim for damages based on breach of fiduciary duty and reliance on s 218 of the Companies Act was not properly pleaded, prejudicing Mr Mirchandani and violating procedural fairness. The lease agreements were found to be valid and binding, with the ac…

Source excerpt

• Breach Of Fiduciary Duty
• Profit Share Agreement
• Lease Agreement
• Damages
• National Environmental Management Act
• Companies Act Liability

Sasfin Bank Limited v Amoils and Another (1120/2019)

Sasfin Bank Limited v Amoils and Another (1120/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 237 (30 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

1120/2019

Judge

I Opperman

The court held that the common law position, as confirmed in Pickitup, is that joint wrongdoers are ordinarily entitled to recover a contribution from their fellow joint wrongdoers unless there is deliberate malfeasance. The Companies Act does not exclude this remedy, and section 218(3) expressly preserves common law rights. The third party, as a co-director, could be held liable for a portion of any judgment against the defendants. The claim for a monetary judgment is premature, but a declaratory order is competent. The third party notice contains sufficient allegations, and further particul…

Source excerpt

• Companies Act Liability
• Joint Wrongdoers
• Contribution And Indemnification
• Business Rescue
• Director Duties
• Exception Procedure

Botha NO and Others v Van Zyl and Others (28037/19)

Botha NO and Others v Van Zyl and Others (28037/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 556 (29 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28037/19

Judge

GW Girdwood

The High Court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim in a corporate-liability dispute, holding the pleadings were sufficiently clear and that a section 77 objection needed a special plea.

• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Reckless Trading
• Fiduciary Duties
• Close Corporations Act
• Companies Act Liability
• Exception Procedure