Tag Archives: Companies Act

Companies

WHO MAY BE APPOINTED AS DIRECTOR?

Certain people are not eligible to be appointed as directors of a company. In this article we look at who is disqualified from being a director as well as the effects of the actions of such persons while still acting as director.

A company must not knowingly permit an ineligible or disqualified person to serve or act as a director, according to section 69(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. “Knowingly” includes the situation where the company should reasonably have known that the person is ineligible or disqualified.

Section 69(7) lists the persons on which there are an absolute prohibition, being juristic persons, minors or any persons disqualified in terms of the Memorandum of Incorporation. Section 69(8) lists the persons that are disqualified on a temporary basis, being someone who has been prohibited by the court or whom the court has declared a delinquent, unrehabilitated insolvents, persons who were removed from an office of trust on the grounds of misconduct involving dishonesty, and persons who were found guilty of a criminal offence and imprisoned without the option of a fine, or were ordered to pay a higher fine for being found guilty of any dishonesty crimes.[1]

A question that arises here is what the effect would be of appointing a prohibited director. Section 69(4) says that a person immediately ceases to be a director if they are prohibited from being a director, but section 71(3) states that if a shareholder alleges that a person is disqualified then the person must be removed by a board resolution before they cease to be a director. This means that any act done by such a person, despite his disqualification, will be valid and binding on the company unless the third party who was involved in the act was aware that the person they were dealing with was disqualified.[2]

Section 162(5) (a)-(f) sets out the grounds for an order of delinquency. A court must make an order declaring a person to be a delinquent director if the person:

  1. consented to serve as a director, or acted in the capacity of a director or prescribed officer, while ineligible or disqualified to be a director;
  2. acted as a director in a manner that contravened an order of probation;
  3. grossly abused the position of director while being a director;
  4. took personal advantage of information or an opportunity, or intentionally or by gross negligence inflicted harm upon the company or a subsidiary while being a director;
  5. acted in a manner that amounted to gross negligence, wilful misconduct or breach of trust while being a director; or as contemplated in section 77(3) (a), (b) or (c);
  6. has repeatedly been personally subject to a compliance notice or similar enforcement mechanism;
  7. has been convicted of an offence at least twice, or subjected to an administrative fine or similar penalty; or
  8. was a director of a company or a managing member of a close corporation, or controlled or participated in the control of a juristic person that was convicted of an offence, or subjected to a fine or similar penalty, within a period of five years. [3] & [4]

If a person is declared a delinquent in terms of section 162(5) (a) or (b) it is unconditional and for the lifetime of the person. If a person is declared a delinquent in terms of section 162(5) (c)-(f) this is temporary for a minimum of 7 years.[5]

It is therefore very important, when appointing a director, to make sure that he is qualified in terms of the new Companies Act. One must do proper research about a person accordingly before appointing him as a director of a company because it is possible that if you do not do so, the company in which you are a shareholder may have to bear the consequences of the actions of this disqualified person.

[1] Section 69(7) – (8) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.

[2] Section 69(4) and 71(3) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008.

[3] Section 162(5) (a)-(f) of the Companies Act.

[4] FHI Cassim et al Contemporary Company Law (2012) 435 – 437.

[5] FHI Cassim et al Contemporary Company Law (2012) 438.

References:

  • Companies Act 71 of 2008
  • FHI Cassim et al Contemporary Company Law (2012)

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.

Companies

JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN MATTERS INVOLVING COMPANIES

Traditionally, and under the previous Companies Act, a company could have a principal place of business and a registered office.  A company could, for instance, conduct its business at one office and also have a registered office with its auditors. In terms of the 1973 Companies Act any division of the High Court where a company’s registered office or its principal place of business was located, would have jurisdiction. More than one Court could, as a consequence, have jurisdiction in proceedings where a company was involved.

The new 2008 Companies Act, which repealed to a large extent the 1973 Act, does not have a similar wording that provides for more than one address. In the matter of Sibakhulu Construction (Pty) Ltd vs Wedgewood Village Golf Country Estate (Pty) Ltd (Nedbank Intervening) 2013 (1) SA 191 the Western Cape High Court dealt with the question of which Court would have jurisdiction where a company has a registered address different from its principal place of business.

The matter revolved around business rescue proceedings and winding up proceedings. The Court remarked that Section 128 of the Act makes reference to only “…the High Court…”  This wording denotes that a single Court would have jurisdiction over a company, and not more than one Court as in the previous Act. In dealing with the matter the Court considered the interpretation of the new Act.

Section 23(3) of the new Act specifically states that a company must continually maintain at least one office and register the address of its office or of its principal office if the company has more than one office. This office will, under the new Act, be the company’s registered office.  Section 23 makes it clear that this office must be maintained by the company itself and the following Section deals with documentary records to be kept at the address. The Court remarked that the new Act retained the institution of a registered office with which the outside world could make contact.

Unfortunately the Act does not define “principal office” but the Court remarked that, from a reading of the Act, it is clear that the intention is to denote the place where the administrative business of the company is centred. It follows, the Court suggested, that this office should also be the principal place of business. The Court concluded that the principal place of business and the registered office have to be at the same address under the new Act.

Reference was further made to Section 7 of the new Act where it is stated that the purpose of the Act is to provide a “predictable and effective environment for the efficient regulation of companies”. The Court held the view that to give effect to the purpose of the Act as set out in Section 7 it would follow that, in terms of Section 23, a company can only reside at its registered office, which means that only a single court can have jurisdiction.

Companies should be aware of this judgement and make sure that they register their principal place of business as their registered address.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice.