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
Moyo v Old Mutual Ltd and Others (22791/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 336; [2022] 3 All SA 795 (GJ) (16 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed contempt and delinquency claims against Old Mutual and its directors, finding no contempt, no delinquency, and lawful termination.
Moyo v Old Mutual Limited and Others (34004/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 665 (23 August 2021)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delays in prosecuting the matters, and that the prejudice suffered by the respondents, particularly the ongoing stigma and regulatory uncertainty, outweighed the applicant's financial and personal hardship. The court held that the interests of justice and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, and that postponement of the delinquency application would unduly prolong the prejudice. However, the court found that consolidation of the contempt and delinquency applications would promote eff…
Source excerpt
Companies and Intellectual Property Commission v Moola and Others (44337/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 102 (30 March 2017)
The court found that the respondents were not lawfully appointed as directors of CCE Motor Holdings (Pty) Ltd, as the purported meeting of 20 September 2010 was neither properly convened nor compliant with statutory requirements. The evidence indicated that no valid resolution was passed, and the documentation supporting the respondents' appointment was unreliable and possibly fraudulent. Consequently, the applicant's case for declarations of delinquency against the respondents failed, as the necessary factual and legal foundation was absent. Regarding the respondents' review application, the…
Source excerpt
Lewis Group Limited v Woollam and Others (9900/2016) [2016] ZAWCHC 130; [2017] 1 All SA 192 (WCC); 2017 (2) SA 547 (WCC) (11 October 2016)
The court held that Woollam, as a shareholder, has direct standing under s 162 of the Companies Act to seek a declaration of delinquency against directors and therefore cannot ordinarily proceed derivatively under s 165 for the same relief. The rationale for derivative actions is to provide redress where the proper plaintiff (the company) fails to act, which is not applicable when the shareholder can litigate personally. The court found that none of Woollam's grounds of complaint made out a prima facie case of serious misconduct, dishonesty, or gross negligence as required by s 162(5)(c). The…
Source excerpt
Explore more
