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
Brand v Potgieter and Others (010361/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 561 (4 June 2025)
The High Court set aside a Companies Act referral-to-trial interlocutory application as an irregular step because the same relief was already sought in the main application.
Briers and Another v Dr J Bruwer and Associates No 78 Inc and Others (19726/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 223 (27 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a section 163 oppression claim, holding that the consultancy agreements allowed termination on 30 days’ notice and no unfair prejudice was proved.
Gelderblom and Others v Sandown Bay Fishing Company (Pty) Ltd and Others (Reasons) (19605/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 210 (19 May 2025)
The High Court granted an urgent interdict stopping a shareholders’ meeting to remove the applicants as directors pending a section 163 Companies Act application.
Msimbithi Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v African Legend Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others (628/2023) [2025] ZASCA 61 (14 May 2025)
The SCA upheld a capital-raising share issue, set aside the dismissal of a delinquency counter-application, and declared Ramano delinquent for seven years.
Ungerer v Ferreira and Others (4475/2024) [2025] ZAECQBHC 13 (7 May 2025)
The court found that the relationship between the applicant and first respondent, while not a formal partnership, operated as a quasi-partnership, with mutual involvement in management, equal shareholding, and joint financial contributions. The first respondent's unilateral exclusion of the applicant from management, banking, and administrative functions, coupled with refusal to engage in a reasonable exit strategy and imposition of unfair conditions, constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct under section 163 of the Companies Act. The applicant had a reasonable expectation to p…
Source excerpt
Khawa v Littlefish App (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/069982) [2025] ZAGPJHC 418 (25 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed a section 163 oppression application, holding the remedy does not apply to a foreign company and that the applicant failed to prove unfair prejudice.
De Wet and Another in re Olive Trading Company (Pty) Ltd v Kuyanda Commodities 34 CC t/a Bafana Petroleum (2024/024546) [2025] ZAGPPHC 390 (23 April 2025)
The Intervening Applicants, as minority members and creditors of Kuyanda, have demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the liquidation proceedings and are entitled to intervene. The business rescue applications pending in the Mpumalanga High Court have been properly commenced and, in terms of section 131(6) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, automatically suspend the liquidation application until adjudication of the business rescue proceedings. The facts and legal issues in this matter are intertwined with multiple related applications already pending in Mpumalanga, and judicial effic…
Source excerpt
Cossadianos and Others v Nel and Others (2024-104634) [2025] ZAGPPHC 284 (17 March 2025)
The court found that Mr. Nel's unilateral exclusion of Mr. Cossadianos from the management and affairs of the companies, without recourse to legal process, constituted oppressive and unfairly prejudicial conduct under section 163 of the Companies Act. The respondents' justification based on allegations of fraud did not entitle them to resort to self-help, as disputes must be resolved through the courts. The applicants retained locus standi despite the respondents' attempt to cancel their interests, as such cancellation was not effected through due process. The deadlock and breakdown of trust…
Source excerpt
Golden v Quantum Foods Holdings Limited and Others (14827/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 364 (7 November 2024)
The court held that clause 29.3.2.1 of the first respondent's Memorandum of Incorporation, which allowed for the removal of a director by majority of the board without notice, reasons, or an opportunity to make representations, is contrary to public policy and invalid. The Companies Act, particularly sections 71(3) and (4), requires procedural safeguards for the removal of directors, including notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond. The procedure adopted by the respondents breached principles of natural justice and failed to meet constitutional standards of fairness, reasonableness, a…
Source excerpt
Lebra Development (Pty) Ltd and Others v Bester and Others (A154/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1087 (21 October 2024)
The High Court refused to reinstate a lapsed appeal, finding the delay explanation unreasonable, the Directive argument unsustainable, and no prospect of success.
Explore more
