South Africa Case Law

Black Royalty Minerals Koornfontein (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff, Middelburg and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2024-008520)

Black Royalty Minerals Koornfontein (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff, Middelburg and Another (Leave to Appeal) (2024-008520) [2025] ZAGPPHC 406 (22 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-008520

Judge

SA Thobane

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and upholding punitive costs against the applicant.

• Leave To Appeal
• Execution Of Judgments
• Locus Standi
• Costs Award
• Company Separate Personality
• Leave-to-appeal

Black Royalty Minerals Koornfontein (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff Middelburg and Another (2024/008520)

Black Royalty Minerals Koornfontein (Pty) Ltd v Sheriff Middelburg and Another (2024/008520) [2024] ZAGPPHC 186 (27 February 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/008520

Judge

Nyathi

Urgent application to stop execution of a court order was dismissed for lack of urgency, with costs awarded on the attorney-and-client scale.

• Company Separate Personality
• Urgent Interdict
• Non Joinder
• Execution Of Court Orders
• Urgent-interdict
• Non-joinder

PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd v Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd (87615/2019)

PKX Capital (Pty) Ltd v Isago at N12 Development (Pty) Ltd (87615/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 646 (7 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

87615/2019

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

The court held that the 2017 agreement was not superseded, but PKX failed to prove payment entitlement under that agreement, so its claim was dismissed.

• Contract Supersession
• Transactional Advisory Fees
• Estate Agency Affairs Act
• Performance Of Mandate
• Company Separate Personality
• Property Sale Agreements

Shongwe and Another v Meyiwa and Others

Shongwe and Another v Meyiwa and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 558; 58823/2021 (17 July 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

58823/2021

Judge

Sethusha-Shongwe

The court found that the assets used to purchase the immovable property belonged to 311 Acquisitions (Pty) Ltd, a separate juristic person, and not to the joint estate of the applicant and the deceased. The applicant, as a shareholder, holds proprietary rights in the company but not in its assets. The relief sought under section 15(3)(c) of the Matrimonial Property Act was misplaced, as the transaction involved company assets, not joint estate assets. There was no application to pierce the corporate veil, and the company was not a party to the proceedings. The court distinguished the Marais v…

Source excerpt

• Matrimonial Property Act
• Company Separate Personality
• Donation Of Assets
• Customary Marriage
• Locus Standi
• Joint Estate

Skok David N.O. v Dumbrill and Others (43769/2018)

Skok David N.O. v Dumbrill and Others (43769/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1017 (19 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43769/2018

Judge

Van der Berg AJ

The High Court held that a company’s insurance policy proceeds belonged to the company, not the shareholder’s estate, and dismissed a tacit-term claim.

• Company Separate Personality
• Sale Of Shares
• Tacit Terms
• Insurance Policy Proceeds
• Joinder
• Costs Order

Nedbank Ltd v Hip Hop Pantsula Production Close Corporation (23465/2019)

Nedbank Ltd v Hip Hop Pantsula Production Close Corporation (23465/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 299 (3 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23465/2019

Judge

M.M.D Lenyai

Summary judgment was granted to Nedbank on a loan and mortgage-bond claim, with special executability of the immovable property and costs awarded.

• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Liquidated Claim
• Company Separate Personality
• Special Executability
• Summary-judgment

Mukhawana v Dinath and Others (85785/2017)

Mukhawana v Dinath and Others (85785/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 413 (22 July 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85785/2017

Judge

Skibi

The High Court granted leave to appeal against a final sequestration order, finding reasonable prospects of success on issues of insolvency and creditor status.

• Sequestration
• Insolvency Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Creditor Claims
• Company Separate Personality
• Insolvency-act

Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Ltd (20729/2014)

Itzikowitz v Absa Bank Ltd (20729/2014) [2016] ZASCA 43; 2016 (4) SA 432 (SCA) (31 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20729/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Cachalia, Willis, Saldulker, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's counterclaim A, seeking recovery for pure economic loss reflecting the diminution in the value of his shareholding, was misconceived. The loss alleged was suffered by AMU, and the appellant, as a shareholder thrice removed, had no personal claim against Absa for wrongs committed against the company. The court reaffirmed the principle that a shareholder cannot recover for reflective loss, and that only the company may sue for loss suffered by it. The court found no facts pleaded to establish a separate and independent duty owed by Absa to t…

Source excerpt

• Pure Economic Loss
• Shareholder Claims
• Reflective Loss
• Wrongfulness
• Company Separate Personality

Slabbert Burger Transport (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd v Pieterse NO and Others (1410/2013)

Slabbert Burger Transport (Namibia) (Pty) Ltd v Pieterse NO and Others (1410/2013) [2013] ZAWCHC 23 (14 February 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1410/2013

Judge

R M Nyman

The court found that the applicant had possession of the vehicles and was unlawfully deprived of such possession by the respondents, who locked the depots and prevented access. The respondents' defence of legal justification based on their duties as liquidators was rejected, as section 391 of the Companies Act does not authorise seizure of third-party property without a court order. The applicant and SBT are separate juristic entities, and the respondents failed to provide grounds for piercing the corporate veil. The urgency of the application was upheld due to the nature of spoliation and th…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Liquidation Procedure
• Company Separate Personality
• Urgent Interdict

Hughes v Ridley and Others (6550/08)

Hughes v Ridley and Others (6550/08) [2009] ZAKZPHC 26; 2010 (1) SA 381 (KZP) (12 June 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

6550/08

Judge

Levinsohn

The court upheld an exception, holding the particulars did not disclose a partnership claim because the pleaded arrangement was consistent with forming a company.

• Company Separate Personality
• Partnership Essentialia
• Shareholder Rights
• Fiduciary Duties
• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Company-separate-personality