South Africa Case Law

Mount Frere Builders and Furniture Suppliers (Pty) Ltd v Kot Plus (Pty) Ltd and Others (Reasons) (3361/2024)

Mount Frere Builders and Furniture Suppliers (Pty) Ltd v Kot Plus (Pty) Ltd and Others (Reasons) (3361/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 96 (20 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3361/2024

Judge

Mhambi

The High Court held that a misdescription of the applicant’s name did not invalidate the seizure order, and dismissed the spoliation/vindication application with costs.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Rei Vindicatio
• Company Name Misdescription
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Motion Proceedings
• Costs Award

Ncube v Maxi Strategic Alliance (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Ncube v Maxi Strategic Alliance (Pty) Ltd (JS868/10)

Ncube v Maxi Strategic Alliance (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Ncube v Maxi Strategic Alliance (Pty) Ltd (JS868/10) [2021] ZALCJHB 383 (19 October 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS868/10

Judge

Mahosi

The Labour Court dismissed a post-judgment joinder application seeking to add two companies to a contempt matter after the original respondent’s liquidation.

• Joinder Of Parties
• Contempt Of Court
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Unfair Dismissal
• Joinder-of-parties
• Contempt-of-court

Wilson v Prinsloo; In re: Prinsloo v Expidor 163 CC t/a The League of Gentleman and Another (CA12/19)

Wilson v Prinsloo; In re: Prinsloo v Expidor 163 CC t/a The League of Gentleman and Another (CA12/19) [2021] ZALAC 10; [2021] 8 BLLR 805 (LAC) ; (2021) 42 ILJ 1714 (GJ) (31 May 2021)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

CA12/19

Judges

Davis JA, Jappie JA, Kathree Setiloane AJA

The Labour Appeal Court held that there was no evidential basis to justify lifting the corporate veil and holding the appellant personally liable for the obligations of Expidor 163 CC. The respondent failed to invoke section 65 of the Close Corporation Act and did not provide evidence of fraud, dishonesty, or improper conduct in the management of the corporation. The mere involvement of the appellant in the business and his financial contributions did not amount to a gross abuse of juristic personality. The court emphasized that the separate legal personality of a corporation cannot be disreg…

Source excerpt

• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Close Corporation Act Section 65
• Joint And Several Liability
• Unfair Dismissal

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Wilro Supplies CC and Another (J 1440/16)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa and Others v Wilro Supplies CC and Another (J 1440/16) [2020] ZALCJHB 210 (1 September 2020)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 1440/16

Judge

Faan Coetzee

The court found that the applicants' cause of action against Dunrose is not based on unfair dismissal but on the judgment debt arising from the 2015 Labour Court judgment against Wilro. The applicants rely on statutory and common law principles for piercing the corporate veil, specifically section 200B of the LRA and the precedent in Footwear Trading CC v Mdlalose. The court held that Dunrose's objections regarding lack of joinder, prescription, and prejudice are unfounded. The amendments to the notice of motion and the admission of the supplementary affidavit are allowed, as they do not intr…

Source excerpt

• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Joint And Several Liability
• Section 200b Lra
• Prescription
• Amendment Of Pleadings
• Referral To Oral Evidence

Dinath NO and Others v Mukhawana (85785/2017)

Dinath NO and Others v Mukhawana (85785/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 71 (7 March 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85785/2017

Judge

Skibi

The High Court granted final sequestration of the respondent’s estate and pierced the corporate veil of his company after finding fraud, insolvency, and creditor advantage.

• Final Sequestration
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Fraudulent Conduct
• Advantage To Creditors
• Acts Of Insolvency
• Piercing Corporate Veil

Holand v Du Toit t/a Bee Consult and Another (JR1975/2012)

Holand v Du Toit t/a Bee Consult and Another (JR1975/2012) [2016] ZALCJHB 516 (15 December 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1975/2012

Judge

Harkoo

The court found that the business of the first respondent was transferred to the second respondent, which assumed all rights and obligations of the first respondent. Even if Section 197 of the Labour Relations Act did not strictly apply, the use of the second respondent as a separate entity constituted an unconscionable abuse of juristic personality, designed to evade responsibility. The facts demonstrated continuity of business, assets, and location, and the formation of the second respondent was a device to avoid liability to the applicant. Accordingly, the corporate veil should be lifted a…

Source excerpt

• Joinder Of Parties
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Transfer Of Business
• Section 197 Lra

Mutale v Lorcom Twenty Two CC t/a Lorcom Vehicle Accessories and Others (JS838/06, JS454/07)

Mutale v Lorcom Twenty Two CC t/a Lorcom Vehicle Accessories and Others (JS838/06, JS454/07) [2016] ZALCJHB 427 (9 November 2016)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS838/06, JS454/07

Judge

P Nkutha-Nkontwana

The Labour Court dismissed leave to appeal, finding no basis to disturb its earlier dismissal and no reasonable prospect of a different outcome.

• Transfer Of Business
• Section 197 Lra
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Leave To Appeal
• Deregistration Of Company
• Leave-to-appeal

Easi Gas (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another; In re: Oryx Oil South Africa (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another (11660/2015, 11656/2015)

Easi Gas (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another; In re: Oryx Oil South Africa (Pty) Limited v Gas Giant CC t/a Independent Gas and Another (11660/2015, 11656/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 73 (14 April 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11660/2015, 11656/2015

Judge

R Francis

The court found that the applicants retained ownership of the LPG cylinders by virtue of their branding, deposit system, and explicit reservation of ownership. The respondents failed to prove that ownership had passed to them, as there was no intention by the applicants to transfer or abandon ownership. The regulations and safety standards reinforce the requirement for owner authorization before refilling, and the exchange practice does not undermine the applicants' rights. The second respondent admitted to filling the applicants' cylinders, justifying interdictory relief against him. The app…

Source excerpt

• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Final Interdict
• Deposit System
• Exchange Practice
• Competition Act
• Lifting Corporate Veil

Hon Shin Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers Of SA (JS651/07)

Hon Shin Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v National Union of Metal Workers Of SA (JS651/07) [2013] ZALCJHB 335 (9 October 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS651/07

Judge

Bank

The Labour Court refused condonation for a late second rescission application, upheld the default judgment as varied, and treated the company as the de facto employer.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation
• Automatic Unfair Dismissal
• Lifting Corporate Veil
• Default Judgment
• Protected Strike

Masondo v Bhamjee, Bhana, Nkosi Close Corparations t/a Baragwanath Pharmacy and Another (J963/97)

Masondo v Bhamjee, Bhana, Nkosi Close Corparations t/a Baragwanath Pharmacy and Another (J963/97) [1998] ZALC 81 (13 October 1998)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J963/97

Judge

M Pooe

The Labour Court found Masondo’s dismissal was substantively and procedurally unfair after Baragwanath Pharmacy closed without proper consultation.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Operational Requirements
• Severance Pay
• Compensation
• Procedural Fairness
• Lifting Corporate Veil