South Africa Case Law

Affinity Consumer Data (Pty) Ltd v Singh-Hewlett (2023-102629)

Affinity Consumer Data (Pty) Ltd v Singh-Hewlett (2023-102629) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1366 (24 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-102629

Judge

H A van der Merwe

The court found that the respondent's answering affidavit, when read fairly and in context, raises a bona fide dispute of fact regarding the applicant's ownership of the vehicle. The respondent's explanation that registration was for tax purposes and her allegations about the applicant being her husband's alter ego create ambiguity about the true intention behind the vehicle's acquisition. The court held that these facts are inherently ambiguous and not presented in a deliberately evasive manner. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the dispute cannot be resolved on the papers, and a robust appro…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Ownership Dispute
• Factual Dispute On Motion
• Corporate Veil
• Transfer Of Ownership

Moller v Komatiland Forest (Pty) Ltd (3075/2010)

Moller v Komatiland Forest (Pty) Ltd (3075/2010) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 7 (10 February 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3075/2010

Judge

B A Mashile

The High Court upheld a first exception and part of a second exception against a damages claim, finding the particulars vague and insufficiently pleaded in part.

• Vague And Embarrassing Pleading
• Corporate Veil
• Unjust Enrichment
• Damages Calculation
• Vague-and-embarrassing-pleading
• Corporate-veil

Muller N.O and Another v Fourie and Others (70852/18)

Muller N.O and Another v Fourie and Others (70852/18) [2020] ZAGPPHC 25 (19 February 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

70852/18

Judge

M Van Staden

The court found that the applicants, as liquidators of LLL, established prima facie claims against the first respondent for R4.8 million and R500,000, both originating from LLL funds. The first respondent failed to seriously and unambiguously dispute the source of these funds, and his defence that the payments were from Theron Jr personally was unsupported. The R4.8 million was a disposition without value within two years prior to liquidation, falling under section 26(1) of the Insolvency Act, and the R500,000 paid after winding-up was void under section 341 of the Companies Act. The first re…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sequestration
• Insolvency Act
• Ponzi Scheme Liability
• Corporate Veil
• Void Dispositions

Liebman v Liebman and Others (22282/19)

Liebman v Liebman and Others (22282/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 227 (6 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22282/19

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court held that the applicant failed to prove a tacit partnership with his son and dismissed the application, with costs and discharge of an interim order.

• Partnership Formation
• Tacit Contract
• Corporate Veil
• Trust Property
• Company Law Separate Personality
• Partnership-formation

Geffen and Others v Dominquez-Martin and Others (4501/2014)

Geffen and Others v Dominquez-Martin and Others (4501/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 118; [2018] 1 All SA 21 (WCC) (17 October 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4501/2014

Judge

Davis

The High Court dismissed a minority oppression application under s 163 of the Companies Act and s 49 of the Close Corporation Act, finding no proven unfair prejudice.

• Minority Shareholder Protection
• Oppressive Conduct
• Shareholders Agreement
• Valuation Of Shares
• Corporate Veil
• Access To Financial Information

Vos v Fynbosland 304 CC (2864/2016)

Vos v Fynbosland 304 CC (2864/2016) [2017] ZAWCHC 20 (27 February 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2864/2016

Judge

Magona

The court found that the Savage Order dated 31 May 2016 was clear and unambiguous in binding only the first respondent to payment and performance. There was no basis to read in joint and several liability for the second respondent, nor to amend the order retrospectively. The nature of the order, being for payment of money (ad pecuniam solvendam), rendered it unenforceable by way of contempt proceedings. The first respondent was no longer before the court due to liquidation, and no grounds existed to hold the second respondent personally liable. Accordingly, the application for contempt was di…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Enforcement Of Court Orders
• Pecuniam Solvendam
• Corporate Veil
• Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act

Sheriff of the Court for the District of Belville v Haywood and Others (C80/2016)

Sheriff of the Court for the District of Belville v Haywood and Others (C80/2016) [2016] ZALCCT 37 (27 October 2016)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C80/2016

Judge

H Rabkin-Naicker

In an interpleader over attached goods, the Labour Court held that the claimant proved the goods belonged to a close corporation, not the respondent employer.

• Interpleader Proceedings
• Onus Of Proof
• Corporate Veil
• Execution Of Award
• Interpleader-proceedings
• Onus-of-proof

National Union of Mine Workers and Another v Van Rooyen and Another (56204/2008)

National Union of Mine Workers and Another v Van Rooyen and Another (56204/2008) [2015] ZAGPPHC 526 (10 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56204/2008

Judge

D S Molefe

The court found that although KPMG did not compile financial statements for Billard Contractors CC after it became dormant, KPMG remained the appointed accounting officer and never resigned. The mere failure to perform certain statutory duties did not render the office vacant. The facts differed from Airport Cold Storage, where no accounting officer was appointed. As KPMG was continuously appointed, the requirements of section 63(h) for personal liability were not met. Consequently, the first defendant could not be held personally liable for the judgment debt incurred during the period in que…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporations Act
• Personal Liability Of Members
• Accounting Officer Vacancy
• Corporate Veil
• Judgment Debt Enforcement

Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited v South Africa Breweries (Pty) Limited (20156/2014)

Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited v South Africa Breweries (Pty) Limited (20156/2014) [2015] ZASCA 93; 2015 (5) SA 38 (SCA); [2015] 3 All SA 255 (SCA); 2015 BIP 22 (SCA) (1 June 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20156/2014

Judges

Ponnan, Mhlantla, Mbha, Fourie, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, following the repeal of section 13 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 and its omission from the Companies Act 71 of 2008, there is no longer a statutory basis for compelling an incola company to furnish security for costs. However, the court retains an inherent discretion under common law, derived from section 173 of the Constitution, to order security for costs where the action is vexatious, reckless, or an abuse of process. Mere inability to satisfy a potential costs order is insufficient; something more is required. In this case, the appellant failed to…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Common Law Discretion
• Abuse Of Process
• Access To Court
• Confidential Information
• Corporate Veil

Mohlotsane v Mobile Telephone Network (Pty) Ltd (JS 402/2011)

Mohlotsane v Mobile Telephone Network (Pty) Ltd (JS 402/2011) [2013] ZALCJHB 281; (2014) 35 ILJ 1595 (LC) (29 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS 402/2011

Judge

Molahlehi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with both the procedural and substantive requirements for a fair dismissal for operational reasons. Procedurally, the respondent did not follow its own retrenchment policy, failed to properly consult with the applicant, and did not ensure that she was given a fair opportunity to participate in the process. Substantively, the selection criterion was unfair as it prioritized the interests of the holding company over those of the applicant, and the respondent did not adequately consider alternatives to retrenchment. The court declined to pierc…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Retrenchment
• Selection Criteria
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Corporate Veil