South Africa Case Law

Kaps and Others v Seripe and Others (Appeal) (A137/2024)

Kaps and Others v Seripe and Others (Appeal) (A137/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 228 (15 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A137/2024

Judges

Allie, Da Silva Salie, Ralarala

The court held that the allotment of 100% of the shares to the first appellant at incorporation was valid and not contrary to the Companies Act, nor was it a breach of any express or implied agreement, as no such agreement was proven. The respondents failed to provide evidence of a contractual or fiduciary obligation prohibiting the appellant from allotting shares solely to himself. The misrepresentation of the company’s B-BBEE Level 2 status in February 2018, while unlawful and sanctionable, did not affect the validity of the earlier share allocation, as the two events were separate and dist…

Source excerpt

• Share Allotment
• Companies Act Compliance
• B Bbee Misrepresentation
• Fronting Practices
• Tacit Agreement
• Costs Order

M Schutte Contractors CC and Another v Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment Commission and Another (3800/2022)

M Schutte Contractors CC and Another v Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment Commission and Another (3800/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 422 (24 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3800/2022

Judges

Van Zyl, Daniso, Cronjé

The court found that the Commission failed to comply with the statutory timeframe for finalizing its investigation and did not properly notify the complainant of any extension, as required by Regulation 15(4). The Commission's findings were based on material errors of fact, including a failure to appreciate the division of responsibilities, the economic benefits received by Mr Mothuli, and the nature of his participation in the Corporation. The Commission ignored pertinent evidence and relied on unsupported deductions. The recommendations made by the Commission were not authorized by law and…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fronting Practices
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
• Procedural Fairness
• Corporate Governance

Sand Shifters Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner: Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission and Another (2021/61622)

Sand Shifters Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others v Commissioner: Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Commission and Another (2021/61622) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1815 (24 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2021/61622

Judge

Motha

The court held that the respondents' challenge to Ms. Colman's authority was unmeritorious, as she was the sole director of the applicant companies and her evidence of authority was uncontroverted. The challenge was properly raised in the answering affidavit and did not require strict compliance with Rule 7(1), but the factual basis for authority was established. On the time-bar issue, the Commission was required by regulation 15(4)(g) to make its findings within one year of the complaint and failed to seek an extension as required by regulation 15(15). The reasons advanced for the delay, inc…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Bbbee Regulations
• Time Bar
• Condonation
• Fronting Practices

Sasol Oil Limited v B-BEE Commission and Others (21415/2020)

Sasol Oil Limited v B-BEE Commission and Others (21415/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 431 (14 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

21415/2020

Judge

Selby Baqwa

The High Court reviewed and set aside the B-BEE Commission’s findings against Sasol Oil, holding they were procedurally unfair, irrational, and time-barred.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment
• Fronting Practices
• Procedural Fairness
• Time Barred Administrative Action
• Administrative-law

Aero-Duct Moya CC v Minister of Public Works and Another (936/2019)

Aero-Duct Moya CC v Minister of Public Works and Another (936/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 32 (21 May 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

936/2019

Judge

Goosen

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to interim relief. The initial determination of the second respondent's bid as non-responsive was not supported by the facts, and the BAC's acceptance of the bid was not irregular. The alleged suspicion of fronting, based on the majority shareholder not signing the board resolution, did not amount to a reasonable suspicion requiring investigation under the regulations. The documents submitted by the second respondent demonstrated full disclosure and compliance. The issue of the tender validity period extension was not…

Source excerpt

• Preferential Procurement
• Fronting Practices
• Interim Interdict
• Bid Evaluation
• B Bbee Compliance

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Swifambo Rail Agency (Pty) Ltd (2015/42219)

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v Swifambo Rail Agency (Pty) Ltd (2015/42219) [2017] ZAGPJHC 177; [2017] 3 All SA 971 (GJ); 2017 (6) SA 223 (GJ) (3 July 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/42219

Judge

Francis

The High Court set aside PRASA’s locomotive tender to Swifambo, condoned a long PAJA delay, and held the award was tainted by irregularities and fronting.

• Public Procurement
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Fronting Practices
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Tax Clearance Certificate
• Bid Specification Manipulation