Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Tsebane Molaba Incorporated and Another v Molatedi N.O. (A26/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 548 (11 June 2024)
The High Court held that a former attorney-director’s estate retained a beneficial interest in his shares for purposes of inspecting company records to value the shareholding.
Moodley v Crazy Plastics Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (23/39002) [2024] ZAGPJHC 7 (5 January 2024)
The applicant, as a minority shareholder, is entitled to access independently reviewed financial statements for the relevant periods under the Companies Act. If audited financial statements exist for prior years, the company must disclose and provide them. If not, the applicant is entitled to have audited statements produced, with the cost to be shared between the applicant and the company. The respondents' conduct in refusing to engage substantively and taking a technical approach is found to be obstructive and unfair. The court orders the production and disclosure of independently reviewed…
Source excerpt
Mouton and Others v 8 Mile Investments 503 (Pty) Ltd and Another (21545/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 990 (1 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed a shareholder trust’s application for company records, finding no binding shareholders agreement, improper amendment of relief, and that signed statements had already been supplied.
Letsobana v Africabin Building Systems (Pty) Ltd (52790/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 368 (10 May 2022)
The applicant, as a shareholder and director, has a statutory right under section 26 of the Companies Act to access certain company records, specifically those listed in section 26(1). The court found that the applicant's request for records beyond those enumerated in section 26 was not supported by the Act. The applicant's reliance on PAJA was rejected because she did not comply with its procedural requirements, and her notices were framed solely under the Companies Act. The respondent is obliged to provide the records specified in section 26, but not the additional documents sought. Given t…
Source excerpt
Nova Property Group Holdings v Cobbett (20815/2014) [2016] ZASCA 63; [2016] 3 All SA 32 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 317 (SCA) (12 May 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the interlocutory order dismissing the application to compel discovery was appealable under s 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, given the conflicting judgments on the interpretation of s 26(2) of the Companies Act and the interests of justice. On the merits, the court found that s 26(2) confers an unqualified right of access to a company's securities register, and the motives of the requester are irrelevant. The right is not subject to the provisions of PAIA, as s 26(7) makes it additional to PAIA rights. The court rejected the Companies' argument that pr…
Source excerpt
Cobbett and Another v Nova Property Group Holdings Limited and Others (61219/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 836 (24 October 2014)
The applicants' response to the rule 35(12) notice, which directed the respondents to websites for document access, was inadequate and did not constitute proper production under the rule. The court held that documents must be produced in a manner that allows for proper identification and inspection. Regarding section 26(2) of the Companies Act, the court declined to make a final pronouncement but indicated a preference for the view that the court retains a discretion to refuse disclosure where the request is for an unlawful purpose, as an absolutist interpretation could lead to injustice and…
Source excerpt
Explore more
