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
Ralineba and Others v Dzivhani and Another (1005/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 148 (4 August 2025)
The court confirmed several shareholdings in MIMED (Pty) Ltd, declared the first respondent’s conduct unlawful, dismissed the third applicant’s claim, and awarded costs against the respondents.
One Vision Investments 344 (Pty) Ltd v Smith and Others (76711/2014) [2020] ZAGPPHC 53 (7 February 2020)
The High Court held that the MOU, Sale of Equity and Cession were valid and binding, dismissed Mr Smith’s counterclaims, and ordered specific performance.
Ramphele v Frontline Africa Investments (Pty) Limited and Others (2018/46462) [2019] ZAGPPHC 80 (15 March 2019)
The court ordered transfer of 40 shares to the applicant as sole heir, finding no proven sale agreement and no bar from the company’s share-transfer clause.
Mkhondo and Others v Boikanyo and Others (7597/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1073 (6 December 2017)
The High Court granted urgent relief ordering immediate transfer of disputed shares, with valuation and payment to be determined later through mediation or arbitration.
Otto v Scholtz and Others (3259/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 140 (23 February 2016)
The court finds that the abstract theory of ownership, which requires delivery and a valid real agreement but not a formally valid underlying contract, should apply to the transfer of shares in South African law. However, there is a material dispute of fact on the papers regarding the intention of the parties and the terms of the real agreement. The applicant maintains that no agreement was concluded and no payment made, while the respondents assert that an oral or tacit agreement existed and that ownership was intended to pass. Given the conflicting versions and the inability to resolve the…
Source excerpt
SA Mohair Brokers Ltd v Louw and Others (602/10) [2011] ZASCA 87 (27 May 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a share sale without prior director approval was not void, and that proxies from registered shareholders had to be accepted.
Gomes-Sebastiao v Quarry Cats (Pty) Ltd (A5015/2010) [2010] ZAGPJHC 103 (10 November 2010)
High Court appeal on share-register rectification under Companies Act section 115, held that Quarry Cats could be registered as sole member of Laezonia despite non-delivery of transfer documents.
Flexi Holiday Club v La Lucia Sands Shareblock Limited (90/02/01) [2006] ZAKZHC 6; [2006] 2 All SA 479 (D) (31 March 2006)
The court held that consent was required to transfer share blocks because the transfer involved delegation of obligations, and the applicant failed to show waiver.
Smuts v Booyens, Markplaas (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Booyens (222/99, 257/99) [2001] ZASCA 57; [2001] 3 All SA 536 (A); 2001 (4) SA 15 (SCA) (2 April 2001)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the restrictions on share transfer contained in the articles of Markplaas (Edms) Bpk, derived from Table B of Schedule 1 of the Companies Act, created an absolute bar to the transfer of shares to a third party unless the prescribed procedure was strictly followed. These restrictions were not merely personal rights but statutory and contractual limitations that formed an original incident of the shares themselves. The right to transfer shares was limited from inception, and absent compliance with the procedure, no rights could vest in the transferee, regar…
Source excerpt
Afrovan (Pty) Ltd v Wellsted (Pty) Ltd (215/82) [1984] ZASCA 25 (26 March 1984)
The Appellate Division held that Afrovan could act on a reported change in control of a member company and that Wellsted had a fair hearing.
Explore more
