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
Van Rensburg v Freedom Property Fund Ltd (5421/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 133 (7 July 2025)
The High Court partly upheld a claim for unpaid contractual payments and attorney’s fees, but dismissed a director’s-fees claim under section 163.
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.
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
Johannes Frederick Gouws N O and Others v Johannes Petrus Erasmus Swarts N O (1250/23) [2025] ZASCA 48 (25 April 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that no binding sale agreement was concluded at the AGM because the parties lacked consensus on price and tax terms.
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.
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
Ensemble Hotel Holdings (Pty) Limited and Another v Swanvest 328 (Pty) Limited and Others (Applications for Leave to Appeal) (2022/058058) [2025] ZAGPJHC 135 (24 February 2025)
The High Court granted both leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal in a shareholder dispute over Legacy Hotels, finding reasonable prospects of success.
Bye v Constantia Metering Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (31250/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 114 (6 February 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any objective acts or omissions by the respondents that resulted in oppression, unfair prejudice, or unfair disregard of his interests under section 163 of the Companies Act. The applicant's subjective expectations regarding succession and participation in company affairs were unsupported by the memorandum of incorporation and the evidence. The existence of two sets of financial statements was adequately explained by the respondents as a response to differing requirements from banks and SARS, and no evidence of dishonesty, unlawful conduc…
Source excerpt
Explore more
