Chemical Industries National Provident Fund v Tristar Investments (Pty) Ltd (960/2016)
Chemical Industries National Provident Fund v Tristar Investments (Pty) Ltd (960/2016) [2017] ZASCA 184 (6 December 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the representatives of the Fund had authority to sign the investment consulting agreement, as the Board's practice was to adopt resolutions by consensus and the requisite two-thirds support was achieved. Rule 13.6.8 did not require a formal vote, and the appointment of Tristar was valid. The argument that the agreement was ultra vires the Fund's rules was rejected; rule 13.7.5 allowed the Fund to terminate appointments lawfully but did not invalidate fixed-term contracts. The court found that Tristar was entitled to accrued income for the unexpired period…
Source excerpt
- Authority Of Signatories
- Ultra Vires Contract
- Investment Consulting Agreement
- Damages Assessment
- Contractual Repudiation