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
Brikor Limited and Another v Parkin N.O. and Others (11622/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 525 (4 March 2021)
The High Court postponed a shareholder-meeting challenge so it could be heard with a later related application, finding the matters were inter-related and no substantial prejudice was shown.
CDH Invest NV v Petrotank South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Another (22312/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 324; [2018] 1 All SA 450 (GJ); 2018 (3) SA 157 (GJ) (17 November 2017)
High Court case on board power to increase authorised shares, shareholder meeting demands, and oppression in a two-shareholder company. The share increase was set aside.
Justpoint Nominees (Pty) Ltd and Others v Sovereign Food Investments Limited and Others (BNS Nominees (Pty) Ltd and Others (878/16) [2016] ZAECPEHC 15 (26 April 2016)
The court held that Sovereign’s appraisal-right condition precedent was not fulfilled or waived, so the scheme never became operative and dissenting shareholders remained entitled to vote.
Du Plessis v Clearwater Estates NPC and Others (82306/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1063 (13 November 2015)
The High Court held that section 58(1) of the Companies Act is unalterable, so the company’s memorandum could not bar late proxy filings. The application failed.
NC Housing Services and Development Company v Matshoba and Others (1577/2012) [2014] ZANCHC 26 (8 August 2014)
The High Court dismissed an urgent company application after finding the board resolutions authorizing it were invalid because the chairman was excluded from notice.
Van Zyl v Nuco Chrome Bophuthatswana (Pty) Ltd and Others (43825/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 40 (13 March 2013)
The court found that the notices convening meetings were procedurally defective and unlawful, as they were issued by individuals rather than the board of directors, contrary to the Companies Act. The interdict granted by the Bophuthatswana High Court remained valid and enforceable, precluding the respondents from exercising voting rights and calling meetings. The purported agreement to relax the interdict was ineffective, as it excluded the applicant and could not override a valid court order. The applicant's conduct in challenging the notices and meetings was a legitimate assertion of rights…
Source excerpt
Explore more
