---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

 

CASE NO: 38204/2022

(1)     REPORTABLE: YES/NO

(2)     OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3)     REVISED: NO

Date: 27 May 2024

E van der Schyff

In the matter between:

 

Edward Eduman Milne                                                                                       1^st Applicant

 

Paul Heslop                                                                                                       2^nd Applicant

 

Adriaan Combrinck                                                                                             3^rd Applicant

 

Christopher Riley                                                                                                4^th Applicant

 

And

 

Jose Luis Rodrigues Babtista N.O.                                                               1^st Respondeny

 

Jaco van Rooyen N.O.                                                                                  2^nd Respondent

 

Jorge Mendoca Velosa N.O.

(Of the Best Trust Company (JHB) (Pty) Ltd)                                                3^rd Respondent

 

In re:

 

Jose Luis Rodrigues Babtista N.O.                                                                   1^st Applicant

 

Jaco van Rooyen N.O.                                                                                      2^nd Applicant

 

Jorge Mendoca Velosa N.O.

(Of the Best Trust Company (JHB) (Pty) Ltd)                                                    3^rd Applicant

 

and

 

Quickstep 684 (Pty) Ltd                                                                                 1^st Respondent

 

Edward Eduman Milne                                                                                  2^nd Respondent

 

Paul Heslop                                                                                                   3^rd Respondent

 

Adriaan Combrinck                                                                                        4^th Respondent

 

Christopher Riley                                                                                           5^th Respondent

 

Gillian Claire Milne                                                                                         6^th Respondent

 

Sarah Heslop                                                                                                 7^th Respondent

 

Wellness Property Company (Pty) Ltd                                                           8^th Respondent

 

Recem Trust                                                                                                 9^th Respondent

 

J Calitz                                                                                                         10^th Respondent

 

Peter Errol Bouwer                                                                                       11^th Respondent

 

J Ginder                                                                                                       12^th Respondent

 

Martie Kuhn N.O.                                                                                       13^th Respondent

 

Proplan Holding                                                                                         14^th Respondent

 

Martin Van Achterbergh                                                                              15^th Respondent

 

Eric Truebody                                                                                             16^th Respondent

 

Norman Nicholson                                                                                       17^th Respondent

 

Renee Hawkridge                                                                                        18^th Respondent

 

Environmental Management CC                                                                  19^th Respondent

 

Misty Lake Trade and Investment 69                                                           20^th Respondent

 

40/50 Investments CC                                                                                 21^st Respondent

 

Charmaine Phillip                                                                                      22^nd Respondent

 

Lynn Hardy                                                                                                 23^rd Respondent

 

Dion Barnard Holding                                                                                  24^th Respondent

 

Jacobus Phillipus de Villiers                                                                         25^th Respondent

 

Argontoula Pleaner Holding                                                                         26^th Respondent

 

Willem Christoffel Van Wijk N.O. and                                                           27^th Respondent

 

Petronella Jacoba van Wijk N.O.                                                  

Robjohn CC                                                                                                28^th Respondent

 

Rainer Schuerger                                                                                         29^th Respondent

 

Jimoto Bushvel Investments                                                                        30^th Respondent

 

Willem du Preez                                                                                         31^st  Respondent

 

Jackie Howard                                                                                            32^ndRespondent

 

Hillary Oats                                                                                                 33^rd  Respondent

 

Nich Rosenberg                                                                                         34^th Respondent

 

Margaret Ann Callen and E Callen                                                              35^th Respondent

 

Pamela Ann Bouwer                                                                                   36^th Respondent

 

Bruno de Castro                                                                                         37^th Respondent

 

Toney Vey Family Trust                                                                               38^th  Respondent

 

Istermar Game Farm CC                                                                             39^th Respondent

 

Ian Lawrence Peach N.O.                                                                            40^th Respondent

 

Ivan James Roodt N.O.                                                                                 41^stRespondent

 

Jonathan Peach                                                                                        42^nd Respondent

 

Anna-Mare Peacj N.O.                                                                                 43^th Respondent

 

JVH Krȕger N.O.                                                                                        44^th Respondent

 

Ivan James Emmett N.O.                                                                            45^th Respondent

 

Combrinck Incorporated                                                                              46^th Respondent

 

JUDGMENT

Van der Schyff J

 

Introduction

 

[1]          This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment and order dated 2 May 2024 in the abovementioned matter. The second to fifth respondents in the main application are the applicants in this application for leave to appeal. Three main grounds of appeal are raised:

 

                      i.        The first ground of appeal is that I erred in finding that short notice of the shareholders' meeting was fatal to the validity of the shareholders’ meeting and that the principle laid down in Van Zyl  v Nuco Chrome Bophuthatswana (Pty) Ltd and Others[1] and not the principle laid down in Millar v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd[2] applies and that Millar v Natmed is wrong insofar as it allows for the condonation of short notice of shareholders’ meetings outside the parameters of section 62(2A) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the 2008 Companies Act);

 

                    ii.        The second ground of appeal is that I erred in finding that the papers were effectively served on all interested and affected parties;

 

                   iii.        The third ground of appeal is that I erred in finding that neither Recem Trust nor Portion 7 Alsef (Pty) Ltd qualified as shareholders as defined in the Companies Act. The applicants in this application for leave to appeal contend that I should have found that if regard is had to the extended meaning of section 57(1) of the 2008 Companies Act, Recem Trust or Portion 7 Alsef (Pty) Ltd qualified as a shareholder.

 

[2]          A written judgment was handed down containing the reasons for the order granted on 2 May 2024. There is no need to revisit these reasons. Having considered the grounds of appeal raised, I am not of the view that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. As a general proposition, I agree with the applicants in this application that it is important and necessary that the extended meaning of the term shareholder, as provided for in section 57(1) of the 2008 Companies Act, be interpreted and traversed by the Supreme Court of Appeal. In this case, however, the undisputed factual finding that Mr. Riley signed the impugned notice as the representative of Istemar Game Farm CC and not in his capacity as trustee of Recem Trust renders the extended definition of the term shareholder as contained in section 57(1)  an interesting academic issue only.

 

[3]          A court is not concerned with what a party ‘would have’ or ‘could have’ done, but with what the court finds, on a proper evaluation of the facts placed before the court, a party did, in fact, do.

 

[4]          In casu, it is important to have regard to the fact that natural persons and juristic persons represent two distinct categories of legal subjects. The differentiation between natural and juristic persons is not a mere legal technicality. It is vital to protect the distinction between the two categories of legal subjects. Company Law is complicated, and natural persons who venture into the legal labyrinth comprising the legal principles governing Company Law in order to draw the benefits it brings, must be aware of the risks it poses. On the facts, Mr. Riley could, in theory, probably have represented Recem Trust when he signed the notice calling for the shareholders’ meeting, the question is whether he did, in fact, represent Recem Trust. He states in the answering affidavit:[3]

 

‘Accordingly, the notice convening the shareholders meeting of 24 May 2022, [w]as signed by me in my representative capacity of Istemar, the only shareholders I represented, alternatively, accepting the applicants (sic) contention that Recem share sale agreement with Alsef is void, then the shares vested with Recem and as such I appended my signature to reflect that I was also acting on behalf of Recem.’

 

[5]          Mr. Riley did not provide the court with any proof that he was, in fact, representing Recem Trust. He did not attach a resolution from Recem Trust authorising him to call the meeting on the Trust’s behalf. It cannot be found that he acted on behalf of TRecem trust when he signed the impugned notice.

 

[6]          Portion 7 Alsef (Pty) Ltd does not meet the requirements for being regarded as a shareholder in terms of the Act.

 

Costs

[7]          The respondents in this application sought a costs order that includes the costs of senior counsel. The Rules Board for Courts of Law recently issued amendments to the Uniform Rules of Court which took effect on 12 April 2024. One of the material amendments relates to Rule 67A. The rule, among others, provides that a bill of costs submitted for taxation shall be for advocates in accordance with the tariff in rule 69. I sought supplementary heads of argument from the parties dealing with the costs issue. I considered the supplementary heads filed, the complexity and significance of the matter.

 

ORDER

In the result, the following order is granted:

1.    The application is dismissed with costs, counsel’s fees to be recovered in accordance with the maximum tariff provided for in as provided for in Scale B to Rule 69.

 

 

E van der Schyff

Judge of the High Court

 

Delivered: This judgement is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. As a courtesy gesture, it will be emailed to the parties/their legal representatives.

For the applicants in the application
For leave to appeal:	Adv. L. Morris SC
Instructed by:	Frese Gurovich Attorneys
For the respondents in the application
for leave to appeal:	Adv. ARG Mundell SC
Instructed by:	AC Schmidt Inc.
Date of the hearing:	20 May 2024
Date of judgment:	27 May 2024

---