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
Priestman v Fibonacci Asset Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (2025/023556) [2025] ZAGPJHC 416 (11 April 2025)
The High Court set aside a shareholder resolution removing the applicant as director and recorded that a planned follow-up meeting would not proceed.
Cowan and Others v Norton and Others (2024/090281) [2025] ZAGPJHC 358 (25 March 2025)
The court dismissed an application over PAC’s shareholding dispute, holding FPS was not a shareholder and had no voting rights to block director changes.
Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 February 2025)
The High Court granted a rule 35(7) application compelling discovery of relevant documents in a share transfer and director removal dispute.
Jones and Others v Delport and Others (2023/082594) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1182 (20 November 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish truly exceptional circumstances justifying deviation from the default rule that the appeal process suspends the operation and execution of the order. The applicants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that they would suffer irreparable harm if the order is not implemented. Allegations of financial mismanagement and lack of oversight may harm the companies or their shareholders, but there was no evidence of irreparable harm to the applicants themselves. The absence of irreparable harm to the respondents does not suffice, as all re…
Source excerpt
Dlamini and Others v Imbokodv Lemabalabala Holdings Limited and Others (2022/051081) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1112 (31 October 2024)
The court found that the applicants raised issues which another court could reasonably decide differently, thus meeting the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. The omission to deal with costs in the interlocutory and related applications constituted a patent error, which the court corrected under Uniform Rule of Court 42(1)(b). The court held that the shareholders' agreement is valid and governs the relationship between the parties, and the removal of the first applicant as director was lawfully effected by the shareholder. However, given the re…
Source excerpt
Strarfield-Ward and Others v Suluhisho Africa Proprietary Limited and Others (2024/104051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 989 (3 October 2024)
High Court urgent application granted an interim interdict restraining a shareholders’ meeting and forced sale, and ordered arbitration under the JVA.
Mkhwanazi and Another v Manvin Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024-086554) [2024] ZAGPPHC 820 (19 August 2024)
The High Court held that a shareholders’ meeting convened outside section 61 of the Companies Act was unlawful, and set aside its resolutions with punitive costs.
Dlamini v Imbokodv Lemabalabala Holdings Limited (2022/051081) [2024] ZAGPJHC 647 (16 July 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish any factual or legal basis for the relief sought. The arbitral award, which was not challenged on review or appeal, established that ILH is and was the sole shareholder of ILF, and Mr Dlamini was never a shareholder. His removal as director was lawful and properly effected by the shareholder, ILH, in accordance with the Companies Act and shareholders' agreements. The applicants' claims regarding entitlement to dividends, board reconstruction, and procedural irregularities were unsupported by the evidence and contradicted by the establish…
Source excerpt
Langeni and Another v South African Women in Mining Association and Others (27669-2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 267 (13 March 2024)
The High Court granted leave to appeal but refused to let its 10 November 2023 order operate pending appeal under section 18(3).
Ncube and Another v Health and Hygiene (Pty)Ltd (2022-005166) [2023] ZAGPJHC 179 (28 February 2023)
The application for leave to appeal was delivered outside the prescribed 15-day period and no condonation application was made or grounds for condonation advanced. The applicant failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of Rule 49(1)(b), justifying dismissal of the application. Furthermore, the deregistration of the second applicant rendered the appeal moot, as any decision would have no practical effect. The grounds advanced for leave to appeal did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant's conduct, incl…
Source excerpt
Explore more
