MRL2601 StudyNotes
MRL2601 StudyNotes
Study Unit 1
Legal Personality
The new entity can acquire its own rights and duties separate from its members.
The Court can disregard the legal personality to avoid abuse (“lifting” or “piercing the
corporate veil”.)
Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd 1995 (4) SA 790 (A)
[47]
Section 163(4): if a court finds that the incorporation of a company or any act by or use
of a company constitutes an unconscionable abuse of its juristic personality, the court
may declare that the company will be deemed not to be a juristic person in respect of the
rights, liabilities and obligations relating to the abuse.
Courts will not allow the use of any legal entity to justify wrong, to protect fraud or to
defend or hide crime.
Courts will then pierce or lift the corporate veil and hold directors and others personally
liable for acts committed in the name of the company.
The veil will only be pierced or lifted in exceptional circumstances where there is no
alternative remedy available and piercing the corporate veil will prevent an injustice.
This is a combination of section 65 of the Close Corporations Act and the judgment in
Botha v Van Niekerk.
Cape Pacific Ltd v Lubner Controlling Investments (Pty) Ltd: test to ascertain whether an
“unconscionable injustice” was done as applied in Botha v van Niekerk was too rigid.
View in Cape Pacific is disregarded in s 163 (4).
If branches and divisions are not registered entities themselves but merely operate
separately for practical purposes, they do not for purposes of law have their own
separate legal personality.
Study Unit 2
Types of Companies
Types of companies
Profit company:
Object is financial gain for its shareholders.
3
A private company:
• Its MOI prohibits offering of shares to the public, cannot freely transfer shares;
• See Smuts v Booysens; Markplaas (Pty) Ltd and another v Booysens 2001 (4)
SA 15 (A) on this requirement not to transfer shares freely to the public (par 2.6.4
of your text book).
4
Non-profit company:
Company previously registered under section 21 of the Companies Act of 1973.
Objects must relate to social activities, public benefits, cultural activities or group
interests.
Must have directors, but they are not allowed to obtain any financial gain from the
company other than remuneration for the work they performed.
Does not have to have members.
If they have members, some members may enjoy voting rights while others may not.
Study Unit 3
Company Formation
When dealing with the formation of companies, the objectives of flexibility and simplicity
are clear. The Act makes it possible to incorporate both simple business structures and
very complex business structures.
One or more persons may incorporate a profit company. For the formation of a non-profit
company, three or more persons are required. Each of these people must complete and
sign the Memorandum of Incorporation.
The Act provides a standard form for the Memorandum of Incorporation. However, the
use of the standard form is optional. Since the Act allows for flexibility the Memorandum
of Incorporation may be in the form provided for in the Act or it may be in a form unique
to the company.
Once the two documents (the Notice of Incorporation and a copy of the Memorandum of
Incorporation) have been filed with the Commission and the prescribed fee paid, the
Commission may either accept or reject the Notice of Incorporation.
The Notice of Incorporation may be rejected by the Commission under the following
circumstances:
• If it has not been completed in full (s 13(4) (a)).
• If it has not been properly completed (s 13(4) (a)).
6
The Notice of Incorporation must be rejected by the Commission under the following
circumstances:
• If the initial number of directors is less than the prescribed
minimum number (s 13(4) (b)).
• Where as a result of a director’s disqualification, the initial number
of directors become less than the prescribed minimum number
(s13(4)(b)).
In terms of section 66(2) a private company must have at least one director and
a non-profit company must have a minimum of three directors. If the Commission
realises that one of the directors does not qualify to be a director, this will reduce
the number of directors. If the reduction leads to the number of directors being
less than the prescribed number, the Commission has no choice. It must reject
the Notice of Incorporation!
The date stated on the registration certificate is the date on which the company
acquires legal personality. If the promoters have stipulated a specific date on the
Notice of Incorporation, the date on the registration certificate will be the later one
7
of that date and the date on which the certificate is issued by the Commission.
Registration of Companies:
Notice of Incorporation plus a copy of the Memorandum of Incorporation must be filed with the
Commission. In addition the prescribed registration fee must be paid.
The Act is flexible and allows incorporators of a company to include provisions not
covered by the Act, in the Memorandum of Incorporation.
conditions contained in the Memorandum which they should check. The Notice of
Incorporation filed by the company must also contain a prominent statement drawing
attention to each such provision and where it is located in the Memorandum of
Incorporation (s 13(3)).
Note that where the Act is silent on a particular issue, the incorporators of a
company are allowed to include provisions pertaining to that issue in the
Memorandum of Incorporation. The objective of flexibility with regards to
incorporation is once more highlighted. Do you think this flexibility is a good thing
or not?
In terms of section 15(3), where both the Act and the Memorandum of Incorporation are
silent regarding certain matters that have to do with the governing of the company, the
board of directors of a company is generally allowed to:
• Make rules;
• Amend any existing rules;
• Repeal any rules.
Such rules must not be in conflict with the Memorandum of Incorporation of the company
or with the Act. In terms of section 15(4)(a), where there is a conflict between a rule
made by the board of directors and the Act or the Memorandum of Incorporation, the
rule will be void but only to the extent of its inconsistency.
The Act allows for changes to be made to the Memorandum of Incorporation (unless the
amendment of a provision is prohibited by the Memorandum itself in terms of section
15(2) (c) as discussed above in 3.3.1). Such changes may be in the form of:
• A new Memorandum of Incorporation or
• Amendments to the existing provision of the Memorandum of
Incorporation.
An amendment may result in a profit company not meeting the criteria for that category
of profit companies. When this happens, the name and the ending expression must also
be amended in such a way that it reflects the new category that the profit company falls
under.
The Act allows for changes or alterations to be made to the company’s rules and to the
Memorandum of Incorporation. These may be made with a view to correcting minor
errors such as grammar, punctuation, spelling and references.
Note that it is the board of a company or an individual who has been given
authority to do so by the board, that may make the changes.
A company which has filed a Memorandum of Incorporation has the right to file a
translation thereof. The translation may be in any official language or more that one
official language of the Republic of South Africa. It must be filed together with a sworn
statement by the translator confirming that the translation is a true, accurate and
complete translation of the Memorandum of Incorporation (s 17(4)).
As stated above, after filing the Memorandum of Incorporation, a company may make
amendments or alterations to its Memorandum of Incorporation. Anytime thereafter, the
company may file a consolidated revision of its Memorandum of Incorporation. It is
possible, also, for the Commission to require the company to do so.
In the event of a conflict between the Memorandum of Incorporation and its translated
versions, the Memorandum of Incorporation, as altered or amended prevails. The same
applies to a conflict between the Memorandum of Incorporation, as altered or amended,
and its filed consolidated version. The consolidated version may prevail only if it has
been ratified via a special resolution at a general shareholders’ meeting of the company.
12
In the event of a conflict between the latest version of the Memorandum of Incorporation
endorsed by the Commission and any other document purporting to be a Memorandum
of Incorporation, the latest version as endorsed by the Commission will prevail.
The Act allows shareholders to enter into agreements with each other regarding any
matter concerning the company. Such agreements must not be inconsistent with the Act
and with the Memorandum of Incorporation of the company. Where a provision of the
agreement is inconsistent with the Act or with the Memorandum of Incorporation, it is
void to the extent of its inconsistency.
A person who enters into such a contract is held jointly and severally liable for liabilities
emanating from the pre-incorporation contract if:
• Incorporation does not take place, or
• Once the process of incorporation has been completed, the
company does not ratify any part of the agreement. Note,
however, that joint and several liabilities will not apply where after
13
Section 21 does not exclude the common law, which means that a promoter may also
use the common-law alternatives. These are the contract for the benefit of a third party
(stipulatio alteri), a trust or cession and delegation. The common-law constructions have
a major advantage over a section 21 contract because in terms of the common law, the
promoter is not automatically liable if the company is not incorporated or does not ratify
the contract.
Where a name that is to be registered is similar to another registered name, the Act
allows the Commission to make use of the registration number of the company as an
interim name.
The registration number must end with the relevant suffix, as stated in section 11(3). The
company is provided with another opportunity to file a Notice of Incorporation containing
an acceptable name. Upon receipt of the Notice of Incorporation with the amended
name the Commission has to enter the new name in the Companies Register. It must
also issue an amended Registration Certificate reflecting the amended name.
15
Where, according to the Commission, there is a possibility that the name is similar to the
name of another company or another business undertaking or trade mark or that the
name gives an impression that there is a connection between the company that is
applying and another entity or state organ, the Commission may compel the applicant to
inform parties that may be interested by serving them with a copy of the application and
name reservation.
The Act also allows any person who has an interest in the name of a company to apply
to the Companies Tribunal for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the name is in
accordance with the requirements of the Act.
Section 32 requires that a company provide its full name or registration number to any
person on demand. It further prohibits the misstating of the name or registration number
and the stating of the name in such a way that it may mislead or deceive a person.
Where the Registration Certificate is issued with an interim name by the Commission,
the company is obliged to use its interim name. The interim name is used until the
company name has been amended.
In terms of section 12 a name may be reserved for use at a later stage, to be used for a
newly incorporated company or to be used as a replacement for an existing name of a
company.
A reservation is made by filing an application and paying the prescribed fee. Once this is
16
There is a six month reservation period. It is calculated from the date of application for
reservation. Should the person, who applied for reservation of a name wish to transfer
the name to another person, this is possible. It must be done by filing a notice of
transfer.
It is possible to reserve a name with a view to making use of it in the future. A name may
be reserved for use as
• the name of a new company or
• A new name of an incorporated company.
A name is reserved by filing an application and paying the prescribed fee. The
Commission is bound by law to reserve all names that appear in the application for
reservation. An applicant may reserve more than one name.
A name is reserved for six months. The six month period is calculated from the date of
the application for reservation. You must also note the fact that the Act allows for the
transfer of a reserved name to another party.
17
Study Unit 4
Capacity and Representation of a Company
The capacity of a company is the sphere of actions that a company may legally
perform. In terms of our common law, a contract is ultra vires the company when the
conclusion of the transaction is beyond its legal capacity.
The ultra vires doctrine is based on the understanding that a company exists in law only
for the purpose for which it was incorporated. According to the ultra vires doctrine, when
an act on behalf of the company falls outside its main and ancillary objects, the company
does not exist in law and consequently such an act is not binding on the company. Such
an act is described as an ultra vires act.
whether a particular contract falls within the capacity and powers of the company is a
question of fact. If the main purpose of the company was to carry on the business of a
hotel, it is clear that acts necessary to achieve this purpose, for example, the purchasing
of furniture and the hiring of staff, are intra vires.
Under section 36 of the Companies Act of 1973, if members of a company find out about
a proposed ultra vires contract before it is concluded, they may interdict the company
from entering into the contract. However, if an ultra vires contract has already been
concluded, the contract will be binding on the company. An action can then be brought
against directors who have exceeded their powers by concluding a contract on behalf of
the company which falls outside the capacity of the company, on the basis that the
directors have breached their fiduciary duty not to exceed the scope of their authority.
Section 19(1) (b) of the Companies Act of 2008 now considerably widens the capacity of
a company. It provides that a company has all the legal capacity and the powers of a
natural person except to the extent that a juristic person is incapable of exercising any
such power, or the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation provides otherwise. The
capacity of a company is therefore no longer limited by its main or ancillary objects or
business. Although the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation may limit, restrict or
qualify the purposes, powers or activities of the company (in other words impose
restrictions on the legal capacity of the company) in terms of section 19(1)(b)(ii), any
such restrictions would not render any contract invalid that conflicts with these
restrictions (section 20(1)(a)). Thus, the contract remains valid and binding upon the
company and the other party to the contract. Section 20(6) of the Act provides that each
shareholder has a claim for damages against any person who fraudulently or due to
gross negligence causes the company to do anything inconsistent with the Act or a
limitation, restriction or qualification on the powers of the company as stated in its
Memorandum of Incorporation, unless ratified by special resolution in terms of section
20(2). This is in addition to the remedy provided in section 165 (see study unit 9).
However, if the company or directors have not as yet performed the planned action (for
example concluded the contract) that is inconsistent with a limitation or qualification of
the company’s powers contained in the Memorandum of Incorporation, one or more
shareholders, directors or prescribed officers of the company may obtain a court order
19
restraining (i.e. preventing) the company or directors from doing so. A third party who did
not have actual knowledge of this limitation or qualification and acted in good faith, will in
such a case have a claim for any damages suffered as a result. In terms of section
20(4), shareholders, directors, prescribed officers and a trade union representing
employees of the company may also institute proceedings to prevent the company from
doing anything inconsistent with the Act. Note that it is only in the last-mentioned case
that a trade union may prevent the company from acting.
4.3 Representation
A company may also be bound to a contract on the basis of estoppel where the person
purporting to conclude the contract on its behalf lacked actual authority, express or
implied, but the other party to the contract had been misled by the company into
believing that he did have authority. This is referred to as ostensible or apparent
authority. (See the discussion in 4.3.3 below.)
The doctrine of constructive notice provides that third parties dealing with a company are
deemed to be fully acquainted with the contents of the public documents of the
company. Section 19(4) of the Act partly abolishes this doctrine. Thus, third parties
contracting with the company will no longer be deemed to have had notice of the
contents of the public documents of a company merely because they have been filed
with the Commission or are accessible for inspection at the office of the company. But
section 19(5) of the Act provides for two exceptions: firstly, a person is deemed to have
knowledge of any provision of a company’s Memorandum of Incorporation in terms of
section 15(2)(b) (relating to special conditions applicable to the company and additional
requirements regarding their amendment). This is subject to the condition that the Notice
20
Section 19(4) of the Act provides that third parties contracting with the company are not
deemed to have had notice of the contents of the public documents of a company
merely because they have been filed with the Commission or are accessible for
inspection at the office of the company. Therefore, Mr Matthews is not expected to know
that the general meeting’s consent was required for the validity of a contract of that size.
It seems from the set of facts that the exceptions in section 19(5) are not applicable.
The Turquand rule was derived from Royal British Bank v Turquand (1856) 6 El. & Bl.
327; 119 ER 886). According to the common-law Turquand rule, an outsider contracting
with the company in good faith is entitled to assume that all internal requirements and
procedures have been complied with. The company will be bound by the contact even if
the internal requirements and procedures have not been complied with. The exceptions
are: if the outsider was aware of the fact that the requirements and procedures have not
been complied with; or if the circumstances under which the contract was concluded
were suspicious. It was formulated to keep an outsider’s duty to inquire into the affairs of
the company within reasonable bounds.
For the Turquand rule to come into operation, the person who acted must have
possessed actual authority, which was subject to an internal formality. In Tuckers Land
and Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Perpellief 1978 (2) SA 11 (T) the court found
that third parties may not automatically assume that a branch manager or an ordinary
director has authority to act on behalf of the company. The company may still escape
liability on the grounds that the person had no authority.
21
Section 20(7) of the Companies Act of 2008 now codifies the Turquand rule in a
modified form by providing that a person dealing with a company in good faith is entitled
to assume that the company has complied with all of the procedural requirements in
terms of the Act, the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation and any rules of the
company unless the person knew or reasonably ought to have known of any failure by
the company to comply with its formal and procedural requirements.
Estoppel applies only when the agent did not have actual authority to bind the company.
Take particular note of the fact that the misrepresentation (i.e. that the agent had the
necessary authority when, in fact he or she did not) must have been made by the
company as principal. Based on such misrepresentation, the company will be estopped
from denying liability if the third party can prove that:
Study Unit 5
Corporate Finance: Shares, Debentures and Distributions
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 defines a ‘share’ as “one of the units into which the
proprietary interest in a profit company is divided.”
A shareholder is essentially one of the contributors of the fund that sets up a company.
This fund is the share capital of the company.
A ‘share’ is the unit of the contribution made to the share capital. It is property in itself
and can be traded.
Companies Act of 1973 distinguished between par value and no- par value shares.
Par value shares were shares issued with a nominal value attached, for instance, a
company could issue 100 shares with a nominal value of R1 each.
Companies Act 2008: no shares will in future be issued with a nominal value attached.
Only the number of shares must be authorised in the Memorandum of Incorporation, not
their value.
The Memorandum of Incorporation of a company must set out the classes of shares and
the number of each class that a company is authorised to issue.
A company may only issue shares that are authorised by the Memorandum of
Incorporation.
However, a company’s board may increase or decrease the authorised share capital.
They may further reclassify any shares authorised but not issued.
The board decides when to issue shares and how many shares must be issued. In other
words, not all the authorised shares need to be issued. These are shares that have been
issued and for which a counter-performance has been received.
23
Shares are divided in classes according to the specific rights that a share confers on its
holder. The rights that differ among the various classes can usually be divided into the
following:
• The right to vote.
• The right to information.
• The right to share in the profits that have been declared as a
dividend.
• The right to share in the assets that are left on the winding-up of a
company after the company’s creditors have been paid.
The classes of shares most commonly found are preference shares, ordinary shares,
and deferred shares.
CLASSIFICATION OF SHARES
• Preference shares
• Ordinary shares
• Deferred shares
PREFERENCE SHARES:
• Preferential right to dividends.
• Preferent right upon winding up
• Expressed as percentage.
• Shareholder entitled to claim when dividends are declared.
ORDINARY SHARES;
• Considered after dividend for preference shares has been made.
• No limit on the amount of dividend
• Regarded as residuary heir
DEFERRED SHARES:
• Considered after dividend has been paid to ordinary shareholders
• Issued by way of remunerating promoters for services rendered.
The reason why this provision was included in the Companies Act is to guard against the
dilution of ownership in private companies. Dilution of ownership can be explained as
follows: Suppose that Fidelity (Pty) Ltd has two shareholders who each hold 10 shares.
At a meeting of shareholders they will have equal voting power. Suppose that Fidelity
(Pty) Ltd wants to issue 20 more shares. If a third person acquires all 20 of these shares,
that person will have half of the voting rights at a meeting of shareholders. The original
shareholders will now only have a 25 per cent voting power in the meeting of
shareholders. If they exercised rights of pre-emption, each of them would have been
entitled to half of the 20 shares, and consequently they would retain the same voting
power in the company.
26
5.5 Debentures
The duties of the company towards the debenture holders can be secured or unsecured.
A trustee will usually be appointed to hold security on behalf of the debenture holders. If
the company defaults on its commitments to the debenture holders, the trustee will be
able to enforce the security on their behalf, without the need for every debenture holder
to institute action individually.
The board of directors can decide whether to issue debentures without approval of the
shareholders, unless otherwise indicated in the Memorandum of Incorporation.
5.6 Distributions
In the Companies Act of 1973 the concept of ‘distributions’ was rather narrowly defined.
Payments made to shareholders in their capacity as shareholders were included in the
concept, but a repurchase of shares by a company and redemption of shares were
expressly excluded. In the Companies Act of 2008 the last-mentioned acts are now also
classified as distributions.
Section 46 of the Companies Act regulates distributions. You need to know that the
payment of dividends to shareholders is a distribution in terms of the Act. Other acts that
fall under the definition are the purchase by a company of its previously issued shares,
the incurrence of a debt for the benefit of one or more of the shareholders of the
company, or the forgiveness of a debt owed to the company by one or more of the
shareholders of the company
The solvency and liquidity tests are set out in section 4 of the Act:
Solvency test: considering all reasonably foreseeable financial circumstances of the
company at that time, the assets of the company, fairly valued, equal or exceed the
liabilities of the company as fairly valued.
Liquidity test: considering all reasonably foreseeable financial circumstances of the
company at that time, it appears that the company will be able to pay its debts as they
become due in the ordinary course of business for a period of 12 months after the
distribution. If the distribution was in the form of giving a loan to a shareholder or
forgiving a loan made to a shareholder, the period runs from 12 months after the test
was considered.
The distribution must be made within 120 days after the test was applied, otherwise the
resolution by the board must be taken again and the test must be applied again.
As long as these requirements are met, dividends can be paid out of the share capital of
a company. However, usually dividends are paid from the profits of a company. The
board of directors decides how much of the profits they want to pay out to shareholders.
They are free to decide that they are going to keep all profits for the expansion of the
business of the company. Normally in such circumstances the shareholders are not
entitled to dividends.
Originally companies were required to maintain their share capital. In other words, they
were not allowed to return to shareholders some of the funds originally given in return for
their shares, nor were companies allowed to issue shares at a discount, causing the
company to gain less share capital in return for the shares than the nominal value of the
shares reflected.
Companies Act of 1973. You do not need to know the details of these provisions. All you
need to know now is the following:
• A company is allowed to repurchase its shares. This is considered
a distribution, which means that the solvency and liquidity tests
must be met. See above for the definition of these tests.
• After the company has purchased its shares, there must be
shares left other than convertible or redeemable shares. Some
shares must be held by shareholders other than the company’s
subsidiaries.
• If the company repurchased shares and it emerges that it did not
meet the solvency or liquidity tests, the agreement between the
shareholder and the company in terms of which the company
would repurchase his shares, remains enforceable.
o The company must apply for a court order to suspend the repurchase of
the shares. The company bears the burden of proof that it did not meet
the financial requirements of the Act. The court may make any order it
deems fit.
o The court’s order must ensure that the person from whom the shares are
bought will be paid at the earliest time that the company will still be able
to fulfill its financial obligations as they fall due and payable.
• Alternatively, if the repurchase was in contravention of the
solvency and liquidity tests, the company can apply for a court
order to have the repurchase reversed:
o The person from whom the shares were bought will then be required to
return the consideration received.
o The company will have to issue shares to that person in return.
Directors who approved a repurchase of shares in contravention of the requirements
relating to distributions are liable in the same manner as set out on page 57 of the text
book.
29
In terms of the Companies Act of 1973 it was prohibited for a company to provide
financial assistance to a person to enable that person to acquire shares or other
securities in the company, except for some very specific exceptions.
In terms of section 44 of the Companies Act of 2008 a company may assist a person in
acquiring shares and other securities in the company, provided that such assistance is
not prohibited by the Memorandum of Incorporation and that certain requirements are
met.
The decision to assist a person to acquire shares in the company rests with the board of
directors, but only where the assistance is in terms of an employee share scheme or
where a special resolution by the shareholders authorised such assistance to a specific
person or persons that fall in a specific class or category. In the latter case the person to
whom the assistance will be given must fall in that class and the resolution must have
been taken within the two years preceding the board’s decision to assist.
Section 44 further requires that the board must be satisfied that the solvency and
liquidity requirements are met (see above) and that the assistance is given under terms
that are fair and reasonable to the company.
The Lipschitz decision dealt with the prohibition of financial assistance in terms of the old
Act. However, the decision is still important for the application of section 44, because it
gives us guidelines of when the provisions of the section will be applicable to a particular
scenario.
In Lipschitz it was held that the transaction must be assessed in two phases:
• First, it must be ascertained whether there was financial
assistance. In Gradwell (Pty) Ltd v Rostra Printers Ltd 1959 (4)
SA 419 (A) the ‘impoverishment test’ was formulated to assist in
30
When a transaction passes these two phases, it will have to comply with section 44 to be
valid. If it was not financial assistance, or if the assistance was not in connection with the
purchase of shares, section 44 is not relevant to the transaction.
31
Study Unit 6
Shareholders and Company Meetings
• Gohlke and Schneider v Westies Minerals (Pty) Ltd 1970 (2) SA 685 (A) [61]
• Sammel & Others v President Brand Gold Mining Co Ltd 1969 (3) SA 629 (A)
[114]
A shareholders’ meeting may be called by the board or any person authorised by the
Memorandum of Incorporation . A meeting must be convened if required by the Act or
the Memorandum of Incorporation, or demanded by shareholders holding at least 10%
of the voting rights that may be exercised at that meeting.
The Companies Act of 1973 provides that a particular annual general meeting need not
be held if all the members who are entitled to attend such a meeting consent in writing.
In such a case, any resolution that would have been dealt with at this meeting will also
be deemed to be valid if it is in writing and signed by all the members entitled to vote at
that meeting. Otherwise, resolutions have to be taken at properly constituted members’
meetings.
Unanimous Assent:
In terms of this rule, certain decisions may be valid without a meeting being held, if all
the members are fully aware of the facts and all of them assented thereto, although it
need not be in writing. In Gohlke and Schneider v Westies Minerals (Pty) Ltd 1970 (2)
SA 685 (A) the court held that members may validly appoint a director to the board
without any formal meeting being held because there was evidence of their unanimous
consent. The court in In re Duomatic Ltd [1969] 1 ALL ER 161 (Ch) held that the
34
unanimous approval of directors’ remuneration by the two directors holding all the voting
shares in a company could be regarded as a resolution of a general meeting approving
the payment.
Although the general principle still remains that shareholders exercise their rights
through resolutions at meetings, a resolution may be submitted to shareholders and, if
adopted in writing by the required majority, will have the same effect as if it had been
adopted at a meeting without actually holding a general meeting of shareholders (s 60).
This means that the unanimous assent of all shareholders will no longer be necessary.
However, any business of a company that must, in terms of the Act or the company’s
Memorandum of Incorporation, be conducted at an annual general meeting may not be
conducted by using this procedure.
In terms of the Companies Act of 1973, every company was compelled to convene an
annual general meeting at the times prescribed by the Act unless all the members who
were entitled to attend the meeting agreed in writing that the meeting need not be held.
In terms of the Companies Act of 2008, only public companies have a statutory
obligation to convene annual general meetings.
Section 61(8) stipulates that at least the following matters must be transacted at the
Annual General Meeting:
• Election of directors to the extent required by the Act or the
company’s Memorandum of Incorporation;
• Appointment of an auditor for the following financial year;
• Appointment of an audit committee;
• Presentation of the directors’ report;
• Presentation of audited financial statements for the immediately
preceding financial year;
• Presentation of an audit committee report;
• Any matter raised by shareholders.
35
section 61(11): company cannot convene a meeting because it has no directors or all its
directors are incapacitated.
section 61(12): company, fails to convene its annual general meeting or a meeting
required by its Memorandum of Incorporation or shareholders.
6.8 Quorum
Section 64 : A meeting may not begin until sufficient persons holding at least 25% of all
the voting rights are present. Furthermore, if a company has more than two
shareholders, at least three shareholders must be present.
The requirements for both a special and an ordinary resolution clearly state that the
required percentage of votes exercised on the resolution must be in favour of the
resolution to have it validly adopted. Only the votes of shareholders who actually
exercise their votes are thus taken into consideration.
Three possible situations are discussed under this heading. Briefly summarised, they are
the following:
(1) A profit company (other than a state-owned enterprise) with only one shareholder:
• The shareholder may exercise all the voting rights.
• Rules of setting a record date etcetera do not apply.
36
(2) A profit company (other than a state-owned enterprise) with only one director:
• The director may exercise any power or perform any function of
the board at any time except when the Memorandum of
Incorporation provides otherwise.
(3) A company (other than a state-owned enterprise) where every shareholder is also a
director:
• Shareholders may decide on any matter to be referred by the board at any time,
without notice or compliance with any internal formalities except when the
Memorandum provides otherwise; subject to certain specified conditions.
Ordinary resolution
• Requires more than 50% of the voting rights exercised;
• The Memorandum may provide for a higher percentage;
• The Companies Act provides that there should be a margin of at
least ten percentage points between the requirements for the
adoption of a special resolution and an ordinary resolution.
Special resolution
• Requires at least 75% of the voting rights exercised;
• The Memorandum may provide for a lower percentage;
• There must be a margin of at least ten percentage points between
the requirements for a special resolution and an ordinary
resolution.
37
A special resolution is compulsory for certain resolutions stipulated in the Act but may
also be required by the Memorandum of Incorporation.
A meeting may be adjourned for a week if within an hour of the scheduled starting time
the quorum is not formed.
A notice of adjournment will only be given if the location of the adjourned meeting is
different. A meeting may be adjourned for a fixed time and place or until further notice.
Where a meeting is adjourned, it may not be adjourned for more than 120 business
days.
Study Unit 7
Directors and Board Committees
A director is a member of the board of a company and includes any person occupying
the position of a director or alternate director. A person becomes a director only:
• when that person has given his or her written consent to serve as
director,
• after having been appointed or elected or holding office in
accordance with the provisions of section 66 of the Companies
Act.
The King Code differentiates between the following three types of directors:
• Executive directors;
• Non-executive directors;
38
• Independent directors.
There are many differences between being a ‘director’ and a ‘manager’. A manager is
an employee of a company whereas a director does not have to be an employee.
Managers and directors also differ in their roles with regards to inter alia, leadership,
decision making and their respective duties and responsibilities. The boards of directors,
for example, are responsible for the leadership and direction of a company while the
managers’ tasks are to carry out the strategy on behalf of the directors. Directors are
also responsible for organisational decision making while mangers are concerned with
the implementation of such decisions and policies.
39
The different types of companies should each have a specified minimum number of
directors in terms of the Companies Act.
Type of company Number of directors
Private company
Personal liability company
Public company
Non-profit company
Where a company does not have the prescribed minimum directors this does not negate
or limit the authority of the Board. This will also not invalidate any act performed by the
Board or the company.
40
Read
Ineligible:
o means that such a person is absolutely prohibited from becoming a
director without any exceptions.
Disqualified:
Ex Parte Schreuder 1964 (3) SA 84 (O) and Ex Parte Tayob 1990 (3) SA 715 (T).
41
In Ex Parte Barron 1977 (3) SA 1099 (C) the Court held that it could be more lenient in a
case where a private company is affected than where a public company is affected. This
is due to the fact that a director of a public company deals with funds in which a vast
number of people are involved.
The power given to a court to declare a director either delinquent or under probation is
introduced into South African company law for the first time by the Companies Act of
2008. Depending on the grounds on which a person has been declared to be a
delinquent, he will subsequently be either unconditionally disqualified from being a
director for the rest of his life, or disqualified for a period of at least seven years and
subject to any conditions that the court considers appropriate.
An order of probation, on the other hand, may not exceed a period of five years and may
be made subject to any conditions the court considers appropriate, such as a designated
remedial program. Refer to the table on pages 91-94 of your text book for a summary of
who may apply to court, the grounds for application, the order sought and the effect of
the order. You should also take note that three additional grounds to apply for an order
of delinquency are available to the Commission or Takeover Regulations Panel (see
page 94 of your text book in this regard).
• A company can apply to a court of law for an order to have a director declared as
delinquent;
• Where a director grossly abused his position as director and acted in a manner
that amounted to a breach of trust a declaration of delinquency may be made;
• This declaration may be subject to any conditions the court consider appropriate
and will be for at least seven years from the date of the order.
This application may be made only in those cases where the declaration was not made
42
Different types of companies must have a minimum number of directors required for that
specific type of company. At the incorporation of a new company, every incorporator is
deemed to be a director of such company until sufficient directors have been appointed
to meet the required minimum number of directors. If after its incorporation, the number
of directors of that company is lower than the minimum number of directors required for
that company the board of the company will have to call a meeting within 40 business
days after the date of incorporation for the purpose of electing sufficient directors to fill all
vacancies.
A vacancy will arise on the board of a company if, for example, a director resigns, dies or
is unable to perform his or her duties as director.
In the Rosebank Television& Appliance Co (Pty) Ltd v Orbit Sales Corporation (Pty) Ltd
case the court confirmed that a director’s resignation becomes effective once it has been
communicated to a company irrespective of whether it was only later accepted.
If a vacancy arises in the board, other than as a result of an ex officio director ceasing to
hold that office, it must be filled by a new appointment or by a new election as prescribed
by the Act.
43
A director who has been removed from office may apply to a court to review the
determination of the board. This application must be brought within 20 business days
from the date of a decision taken by the board. The court has discretion whether to
confirm the determination of the board.
The board of directors may, except to the extent that a Memorandum of Incorporation
provides otherwise, appoint committees and may delegate any of the authority of the
board to such committee. You should, however, note that a director will still remain liable
for the proper performance of his or her duties despite the delegation of a duty to a
committee.
The Minister of Trade and Industry may in terms of the Companies Act 71 of 2008
prescribe that a company or a certain category of company must have a social and
ethics committee. In terms of section 94(2), every public or state-owned company must
appoint an audit committee of at least three members.
In terms of the King Code a public listed company should at least have both an audit and
remuneration committee. The establishment of a nomination committee is also
recommended. The respective committees make certain recommendations and assist
the board of directors with regard to the specific area of expertise.
per meeting, while the chairman has a deciding vote in the event of a tie. Minutes of all
decisions as well as any resolution taken by the board at a meeting must be kept.
There are four sources from which the duties of directors arise, namely their contracts
with the company (if any), the company’s constitution (Memorandum of Incorporation),
the Companies Act and the common law. The rights and duties created by contract are
determined by reference to the specific contract. Those created by the company’s
constitution were discussed in study unit 3 while the duties imposed by the Companies
Act 71 of 2008, as well as by the common law will be discussed in this study unit.
Apart from a few specific duties and limitations placed on directors by the Companies
Act of 1973, such as the duty to disclose to the board any interest in contracts of the
company, most of the duties of directors were determined by the common law. At
common law directors are subject to fiduciary duties to exercise their powers bona fide
(in good faith) and for the benefit of the company, and to the duty to exercise their
powers with care and skill.
The Companies Act 71 of 2008 now introduces a partially codified regime of directors’
duties, which includes duties similar to the common-law fiduciary duties and the duty to
perform their functions with reasonable care and skill. However, the common law is not
excluded by the statutory provisions, and will continue to apply except insofar as it is
specifically amended by the Act or is in conflict with a provision of the Act. Note that for
purposes of these codified duties, “director” includes an alternate director and a member
of a committee of the board who is not a director.
For the first time, the Act now also places an explicit duty on the board of directors to
manage the company (s 66(1)).
Briefly summarised, the newly codified duties of directors in the Companies Act of
2008 are the following:
45
(1) To disclose to the board any personal financial interest in matters of the
company (s 75).
(2) Not to use the position of director or information obtained as director to gain
an advantage for himself or another person, or to knowingly cause harm to the
company or a subsidiary (s 76(2) (a).
(3) To disclose to the board of directors any material information that comes to a
director’s attention (s 76(2)(b))
(4) To act in good faith and for a proper purpose (s 76 (3) (a)).
(5) To act in the best interests of the company (s 76 (3) (b)).
(6) To act with a reasonable degree of care, skill and diligence (s 76 (3) (c)).
7.15.2 Directors must not abuse their position or information (s 76(2)) and must
act in a certain way when there is a personal financial interest (s 75)
Firstly, section 75 of the Companies Act of 2008 prescribes how a director should act
when his or her personal financial interests conflict with those of the company. Two
different situations are regulated in this provision. If a director is the only director but not
the only shareholder of the company, he must disclose any personal interest in an
agreement or other matter of the company to the shareholders and obtain their prior
approval by an ordinary resolution before he enters into this agreement or deals with the
matter. In all other cases, disclosure must be made to the board of directors of any
personal financial interest of the director in a matter to be considered at a board meeting
and may not be present or take part in the discussion. A director may also make an
advance general disclosure of his personal financial interests to the shareholders or
board, as the case may be.
Secondly, in terms of section 76 (2) (a) of the Companies Act of 2008, a director may not
abuse his position as director, or information obtained while acting as a director, to gain
an advantage for himself or for another person other than the company or a wholly-
owned subsidiary of the company, or to knowingly cause harm to the company or a
subsidiary of the company.
46
The third duty that is discussed under this heading is the duty of a director to disclose
any information that comes to his attention, subject to the exceptions mentioned in the
text book.
A director may be in breach of the duties owed by him or her to the company despite
termination of his or her office. In Sibex the directors resigned from their office to form a
close corporation which competed directly with the special business of the company.
The court found that the knowledge they had gained whilst employed by the company
could not be used to the advantage of a rival before or after they had left the employ of
the company.
Philotex (Pty) Ltd v Snyman and Others; Braitex (Pty) Ltd and Others v Snyman and Others
1998(2) SA 138(SCA) Although the test is an objective one, it contains subjective elements
in that the general knowledge, skill and experience of the particular director in question are
taken into account. A director who is a chartered accountant will therefore need to be more
skilful when it comes to the company’s financial affairs than a director who is an electrician
by trade.
The Companies Act introduced what is called the business judgment rule (s 76(4)). This
provision states that a director will be regarded as having acted in the best interests of the
company and with the required degree of care, skill and diligence if the director:
• took reasonable steps to become informed about the matter;
• had no material personal financial interest in the subject matter of the decision or knew
of anybody else having a financial interest in the matter, or disclosed his interests; and
48
• made or supported a decision in the belief that it was in the best interests of the
company;
A director is also entitled to rely on information provided by certain persons specified in the
Act.
Directors may be held liable for certain losses or damage sustained by the company due to
their actions. These actions may include acting without the necessary authority, fraudulently
or in contravention with the provisions of the Companies Act or the company’s
Memorandum of Incorporation or duties.
A director will be jointly and severally liable with any other person who is or may be held
liable for the same act. The court may however relieve a director from liability, other than for
willful misconduct or willful breach of trust, provided it appears to the court that the director
acted honestly and reasonably.
A company may not indemnify a director in respect of liability arising out of certain
circumstances such as a breach of his or her fiduciary duties.
A company is however entitled to take out indemnity insurance to protect a director against
any liability or expenses for which the company is permitted to indemnify a director. The
company may also take out insurance to insure itself against expenses that the company is
permitted to advance to a director to defend litigation.
It is impossible to exempt directors from personal liability for negligence, default, breach of
duty or breach of trust. The Memorandum of Incorporation may not conflict with any
statutory rule.
49
Study unit 8
Auditors and the company secretary
• International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 (1) SA 680 (A) [153]
Duties of Auditors:
In terms of section 44 of the Auditing Profession Act 26 of 2005, it is the duty of an auditor to
examine a company’s financial statements and accounting records and to express an opinion as
to the truth and fairness, in all material respects, of the statements and the accountant’s
adherence to financial reporting standards. Section 1 of the Auditing Profession Act 26 of 2005
states that an “audit” means the examination of, “in accordance with prescribed or applicable
accounting standards, (a) financial statements with the objective of expressing an opinion as to
their fairness or compliance with an identified financial reporting framework and any applicable
statutory requirements; or (b) financial and other information, prepared in accordance with
suitable criteria, with the objective of expressing an opinion on the financial and other
information”. By attesting that the financial statements fairly present the financial condition and
past performance of a company, an auditor plays a vital function in reinforcing the reliability of
financial information.
8.3 Appointment of an auditor
non-profit companies are not required under the Companies Act to appoint an
auditor, but may do so voluntarily.
• Section 85 of the Companies Act: Every company that appoints an auditor must
file a notice of the appointment with the Registrar within ten business days after
the appointment. The notice must reflect the name of the auditor and the date of
appointment.
• Section 85(4) requires that the incorporators of a company file a notice of the
appointment of the company’s first auditor as part of the company’s Notice of
Incorporation.
Section 90(2) of the Companies Act: persons disqualified from being appointed as the auditor :
• a director or prescribed officer of the company;
• an employee or consultant of the company who was or has been engaged for
more than one year in the maintenance of any of the company’s financial records
or the preparation of any of its financial statements;
• a director, officer or employee of a person appointed as company secretary;
• a person who, alone or with a partner or employees, habitually or regularly
performs the duties of accountant or bookkeeper, or performs related secretarial
work, for the company;
• a person who, at any time during the five financial years immediately preceding
the date of appointment, was a person contemplated above or is a person related
to a person contemplated above.
Section 44(6) of the Auditing Profession Act provides that a registered auditor may not conduct
the audit of any financial statements of an entity, whether as an individually registered auditor or
as a member of a firm, if the registered auditor has or had a conflict of interest in respect of that
entity, as prescribed by the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA).The IRBA is
required to define in the code of professional conduct (see s21(2)(a) of the Auditing Profession
Act) which non-audit services an auditor is prohibited from rendering to the company it is
auditing.
Hamid is therefore entitled to have access to the documents requested from Barney, and may
apply to court if necessary for an order that the documents be furnished to him. The court may
make a costs order against Barney in his personal capacity.
The company secretary is the principal administrative officer of his or her company.
Every public company or state-owned enterprise must appoint a company secretary.
A private company, personal liability company or a non-profit company may voluntarily appoint a
company secretary.
The first company secretary of a public company or state-owned enterprise may be appointed
by:
• the incorporators of the company; or
• within 40 business days after the incorporation of the company, by either the directors of
the company or an ordinary resolution of the company’s shareholders (s 86(3)).
Within 60 business days after a vacancy arises in the office of company secretary, the board
must fill the vacancy by appointing a person whom the directors consider to have the requisite
knowledge and experience (s 86(4)).
Every company secretary must be a permanent resident of the Republic, and must remain so
while serving in that capacity (s 86).
53
Section 87: a juristic person or partnership may be appointed to hold the office of company
secretary if every employee of that juristic person, or partner and employee of that partnership,
as the case may be, satisfies the requirements contemplated in section 84(5); and at least one
employee of that juristic person, or one partner or employee of that partnership, as the case
may be, satisfies the requirements contemplated in section 86.
• certifying in the company’s annual financial statements whether the company has filed
required returns and notices in terms of this Act, and whether all such returns and
notices appear to be true, correct and up to date;
• ensuring that a copy of the company’s annual financial statements is sent, in accordance
with this Act, to every person who is entitled to it; and
• carrying out the functions of a person designated in terms of section 33(3) (i.e., person
responsible for filing the company’s annual return).
Section 89(1): A company secretary may resign from office by giving the company one month
written notice, or, with the approval of the board, less than one month written notice. If the
company secretary is removed from office by the company’s board, the secretary may require
the company to include a statement in its annual financial statements relating to that financial
year setting out the secretary’s contention as to the circumstances that resulted in the removal.
In addition to the record of company secretaries and auditors that a company must keep, every
company that appoints a company secretary or auditor is required to file a notice of the
appointment, or the termination of service of such an appointment, with the Registrar within ten
business days after the appointment or termination, as the case may be
Section 85(4) : The incorporators of a company may file a notice of the appointment of the
company’s first company secretary as part of the company’s Notice of Incorporation.
Study Unit 9
Remedies, Enforcement Agencies and Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR)
55
Donaldson Investments (Pty) Ltd v Anglo-Transvaal Collieries Ltd 1979 (3) SA 713 (W)
[166]
TWK Agriculture Ltd v NCT Forestry Co-operative Ltd and Others 2006 (6) SA 20 (N)
regarding the nature of the derivative action:
• Section 165 of the 2008 Act retains the statutory derivative action in terms of
section 266 of the 1973 Act, but with important changes;
• Section 165 abolishes the common-law right of a person other than the company
to bring legal proceedings on behalf of the company;
• Specific steps must be taken to institute an action in terms of section 165;
• Instead of a curator ad litem appointed by the court, the new procedure provides
for the appointment of an independent and impartial person or committee by the
company to investigate the demand and report back to the board.
• Section 252 of the 1973 Act provided a statutory remedy to minority shareholders
who were the victims of oppressive conduct by the majority;
• This remedy was in addition to the personal action which minority shareholders
could bring against the company under the common law;
• Section 163 of the 2008 Act essentially retains the remedy provided for in section
252 of the 1973 Act, but with a number of important refinements;
• In Donaldson Investments (Pty) Ltd v Anglo-Transvaal Collieries Ltd 1979 (3) SA
713 (W) [case 166] preference shareholders were unsuccessful in their action
under section 252 where they were deprived of certain rights but granted
additional privileges, because an order in terms of section 252 would have
resulted in the shareholders receiving a price for their shares that was far in
excess of their actual market value;
• Robson v Wax Works (Pty) Ltd 2001 (3) SA 1117 (C) is an example of a situation
where section 252 would have brought appropriate relief.
57
• The holder of issued securities may apply to court for a declaratory order
regarding his rights;
• Alternatively, the holder of the securities can apply for an appropriate order to
protect his rights or to rectify any harm done to him by the company as a result of
an act or omission in contravention of the Act, the Memorandum of Incorporation,
rules or applicable debt instrument, or harm done by any of the company’s
directors, but only to the extent that they may be held liable under section 77.
Unlike the 1973 Act which extensively provided for criminal sanctions, the 2008 Act generally
uses a system of administrative enforcement.
The body normally responsible for the enforcement of the Act is the Companies and Intellectual
Property Commission (the Commission), except as regards matters within the jurisdiction of the
Takeover Regulation Panel. The Commission takes the place of the Registrar of Companies
under the 1973 Act. Among other things, the Commission must monitor proper compliance with
the Act, investigate complaints concerning contraventions of the Act, promote the use of ADR
by companies for resolving internal disputes, keep a Companies Register, advise the Minister
on changes to the law, etcetera.
The Commission plays a central role in the enforcement of the Act. Any person may file a
complaint with the Commission and the Commission may also initiate complaints on its own
motion or at the request of another regulatory authority. The commission may respond to
complaints in different ways.
The Act also establishes a new entity, namely the Companies Tribunal. Its two main functions
are to serve as a forum for voluntary ADR in any matter arising under the Act and to carry out
reviews of administrative decisions made by the Commission.
Study Unit 11
59
Close Corporations
• Haygro Catering CC v Van der Merwe and Others 1996(4) SA 1063 (C) [176]
• De Franca v Exhaust Pro CC (De Franca Intervening) 1997 (3) SA 878 (SE)
[170]
• Even though certain natural persons may not have the legal capacity to
participate in the management of a close corporation, even minors, insolvent
persons and other persons with legal disabilities may with assistance become
members of a close corporation.
• No juristic person (i.e. another close corporation or a company) may however be
a member.
• Trustees in their capacities as trustees of trusts mortis causa or inter vivos, or as
administrator of persons under legal disability, may become members of a close
corporation unless a juristic person would be a beneficiary of such a trust or the
beneficiaries would result in the close corporation’s membership exceeding the
restricted number.
Should a person that is disqualified from membership become a member, such person bears
the risk of being held personally liable for all the debts of the close corporation.
60
Before a close corporation can be registered a name has to be reserved. After name
reservation, the founding statement must be lodged at the registration offices (CIPRO) in
triplicate, accompanied by a letter of the accounting officer accepting his or her appointment as
such and payment of the prescribed fee.
- Each founding member is required to sign the founding statement or provide written
authorisation (a power of attorney) for it to be signed on their behalf.
- A guardian or parent is required to sign on behalf of a minor.
- Where a trustee or curator signs on behalf of a member, such a person must indicate
the capacity in which they sign the document.
Transitional provisions
After the coming into force of the Companies Act of 2008, it will no longer be possible to register
new close corporations in terms of the Close Corporations Act or to convert existing companies
into close corporations.
Death of a member:
A member may bequeath his or her member’s interest to his or her heir/ legatee in a Will.
Transfer of the member’s interest to the heir/ legatee may however only occur with the consent
of the other members.
Should the members not permit such transfer, the executor of the estate may:
• Sell the member’s interest to the close corporation
• Sell the member’s interest to other members
• Sell the member’s interest to a third party subject to the other members’ pre-emptive
right to purchase the member’s interest.
62
The money value will thereafter be paid over to the heir/ legatee.
Insolvency of member:
If a member becomes insolvent, the trustee may realise the member’s interest and:
• avoid a conflict of interest between his or her own interests and those of the close
corporation;
• exercise powers in the interest of the corporation;
• disclose any interest in a transaction to the other members of a close corporation as
soon as possible;
• not gain any financial gain by virtue of being members of the close corporation.
Effect of non-compliance:
Non-disclosure wil render contract voidable at the option of the close corporation.
Application can, however, be made to the Court to declare the contract as binding upon the
parties despite failure to disclose.
If the fiduciary duties are breached a member may be held personally liable for any loss
suffered by the corporation or debts incurred as a result of such a transaction (s 42(3)). The
member would in such an event have to repay any profit made by him or her.
Personal liability can however be avoided by disclosing all material facts regarding the
member’s interest in a transaction to the other members of the close corporation and acquiring
prior written approval from all the other members.
A member will be liable only if the close corporation suffers a loss as a result of the breach of
this duty (s 43(1)).
measured against the conduct which could reasonably have been expected from a person with
the same skill and knowledge as the member (to establish negligence).
Consequence: Another member may institute action against the close corporation or its
members in his or her personal capacity.
Geany v Portion 117 Kalkheuwel Properties CC and Others and Moosa NO v Mavjee Bhawan
(Pty) Ltd and Another
Section 36
65
Section 49
Section 49 is a remedy available to a member where there was a single act or omission in the
conduct or affairs of the business by the corporation or other member/s which was unfairly
prejudicial to such member. The court will only intervene if it is just and equitable to do so. The
court may then direct that the aggrieved act or omission be stopped, order the corporation to
amend the founding statement or association agreement, or in certain cases upon application
make an order to wind-up the corporation.
It is possible for a close corporation to acquire a member’s interest from one of its members.
Financial Assistance:
Association agreements:
Alterable provisions:
• The rights of the members to carry on business and manage the close corporation
• What the requirements are for making a decision and voting
• The procedure and proportions for payments to members.
Unalterable provisions:
- Rights of members to call meetings
- Disqualification from participating in management
- How insolvent members’ interest must be disposed of.
Any stipulation in contravention of the Close Corporations Act in the association agreement will
be void.
67
J& K Timbers (Pty) Ltd v GL& S Furniture Enterprises CC 2005 (3) SA 223 (N):
Section 54 of the Close Corporations Act states that every member has the authority to
conclude contracts on behalf of the close corporation in relation to a person who is not a
member (an outsider or third party).
extended
Haygro Catering BK v Van der Merwe en Andere 1996 (4) SA 1063 (C):
Airport Cold Storage (Pty) Ltd v Ebrahim and others 2008(2) SA 303
Personal Liability:
S 23……………………………………………………………………………………….
S 26………………………………………………………………………………………..
S 42………………………………………………………………………………………..
S 43………………………………………………………………………………………..
S 52……………………………………………………………………………………..
S 55……………………………………………………………………………………..
S 65………………………………………………………………………………………
Joint Liability:
S 63………………………………………………………………………………………..
Questions:
1. The Companies Act 2008 changes the classification of companies. Discuss the new position
regarding to the classifications of Companies.
Discuss Profit and Non-Profit Companies under the 2008 Act. Profit companies are divided
into:
• Private
• Public
• State-owned
• Personal Liability.
Each has its distinctive features – you should be able to explain this
2. A concludes a written agreement with B for the purchase of a delivery vehicle. A informs B
that he is acting as an agent for a company to be incorporated in due time. The contract is
after incorporation of the company not ratified.
Explain, with regard to the common law position, whether a valid contract was concluded.
Explain the position in terms of the Companies Act 2008
Common Law
Agency impossible in case of non-existent principle
Contract would be void.
3. Compare the fiduciary duties of directors in companies in terms of the Companies Act 2008
with the fiduciary duties of members of a close corporation.
CLOSE CORPORATIONS:
A member’s fiduciary duties towards the close corporation are similar to the fiduciary
duty a director owes to a company. However, it is not only the common-law principles
regarding good faith that apply but also provisions of the Close Corporations Act.
COMPANIES:
DIRECTORS DUTIES
Sources of Duties:
(1) Common Law
(2) Contract
(3) MOI
(4) Companies Act 2008
4. Briefly discuss and operation of the doctrine of constructive notice in terms of the
Companies Act 2008.
The doctrine of constructive notice has been abolished. Third parties will therefore
no longer be deemed to have knowledge of the content of companies’ public
documents. Much like in close corporations a company will only be able to escape
liability where the third party was not acting in good faith (i.e. he or she knew or
reasonably ought to have known that the person contracting on behalf of the
company in fact did not have the required authority).
5. Samuel wishes to start a business early in 2013. He does not know whether he should
register a private company or a close corporation. Advise Samuel.
Transitional Provisions – after incorporation of the Companies Act 2008 it will no
longer be possible to register new Close Corporations.
6. Distinguish between shares and debentures and the distinctive rights of their holders.
SHARES
• Complex of rights and duties INCLUDING VOTING RIGHTS
• Shareholders participate in the profits of the company
• Shareholders entitled to dividends when declared
DEBENTURES
73
7. The main object of XYZ (Pty) Ltd is buying and selling of second hand cars. In terms of
the articles of association any director of the company is authorized to conclude contracts
on behalf of the company. Contracts exceeding R75 000 must be approved by the company
in general meeting first. Explain whether the company is bound to the contract if a director
buys a car for R145 000 on behalf of XYZ (Pty) Ltd, from X, a member of the company.
Application of the Turquand Rule – see section 20(7) of the Companies Act 2008
If a person other than a director, shareholder or prescribed officer deals with company in
good faith, such person may presume the company is making any decision in exercise of
its power complied formal and procedural requirements in terms of the Companies Act
and its Rules and its MOI
UNLESS… *Person knew
*Reasonably ought to have known company failed to do so