South Africa Case Law

Crous v Wynberg Boys High School and Others (200/2024)

Crous v Wynberg Boys High School and Others (200/2024) [2025] ZASCA 107 (18 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

200/2024

Judges

Makgoka, Weiner, Koen, Baartman, Tolmay

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 65 of the Close Corporations Act does not impose personal liability on members solely by virtue of their membership when gross abuse of juristic personality is established. Liability under section 65 requires that the member's conduct amounts to or contributes to the gross abuse. The appellant's uncontroverted evidence showed he was not involved in the fraudulent scheme conducted through the close corporation. The High Court erred in holding the appellant liable based only on his membership and in misapplying the fiduciary duty owed by members, wh…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporations Act
• Personal Liability Of Members
• Gross Abuse Of Juristic Personality
• Fiduciary Duty
• Piercing The Corporate Veil

Pieters N.O v Pienaar and Others (15691/2023 ; 16769/2023 ; 13665/2016)

Pieters N.O v Pienaar and Others (15691/2023 ; 16769/2023 ; 13665/2016) [2025] ZAWCHC 70; [2025] 3 All SA 224 (WCC) (27 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15691/2023 ; 16769/2023 ; 13665/2016

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The court declared Deon Johan Pienaar a vexatious litigant, barred further steps without leave, and provisionally sequestrated his estate after finding persistent abuse of process.

• Vexatious Litigation
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Piercing The Corporate Veil
• Security For Costs
• Sequestration
• Locus Standi

Vincemus Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kempston Finance v Kaye and Another (20498/2012)

Vincemus Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kempston Finance v Kaye and Another (20498/2012) [2013] ZAWCHC 153 (9 October 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20498/2012

Judge

L J Bozalek

The court found that the applicant had established a liquidated claim against the respondent, calculated as the difference between the amounts owing under the lease agreements and the forced sale values of the vehicles, supported by formal valuations. Even using market or insured values, the claim exceeded the statutory minimum. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence disputing the applicant's calculations. On insolvency, the respondent did not demonstrate the means to satisfy the claim and relied on assets held by other entities, which the court found unpersuasive given the eviden…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration
• Liquidated Claim
• Advantage To Creditors
• Piercing The Corporate Veil
• Suretyship Liability

Metlika Trading Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (24997/2011)

Metlika Trading Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (24997/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 360; 74 SATC 289 (20 July 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24997/2011

Judge

Meyer

The High Court dismissed Metlika and Ben Nevis’s application to stop SARS from executing against assets. It held the prior order allowed execution and delay defeated interim relief.

• Piercing The Corporate Veil
• Interim Interdict
• Guarantee Agreement
• Execution Against Assets
• Income Tax Assessment
• Delay In Instituting Action