Close Corporations Act, 1984

Act 69 of 1984

There are outstanding amendments that have not yet been applied. See the History tab for more information.
Close Corporations Act, 1984
Related documents

Loading PDF...

This document is 20.3 MB. Do you want to load it?

Error loading PDF
Try reloading the page or downloading the PDF.
Error:

History of this document

01 May 2011 amendment not yet applied
Amended by Companies Act, 2008
14 December 2007 amendment not yet applied
01 April 2007 amendment not yet applied
11 January 2006 amendment not yet applied
09 July 2004 amendment not yet applied
27 April 2004 amendment not yet applied
05 October 2001 amendment not yet applied
18 July 1997 amendment not yet applied
01 July 1992 amendment not yet applied
23 March 1990 amendment not yet applied
29 June 1988 amendment not yet applied
13 April 1987 amendment not yet applied
23 April 1986 amendment not yet applied
01 January 1985 amendment not yet applied
04 July 1984 this version
19 June 1984
Assented to

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 2374

Judgment
242
Reported
Section 66(3) valid only when a magistrate (judicial officer) issues committal warrants; non-judicial appointees cannot imprison.
* Constitutional law - personal liberty - s 12(1) Constitution - detention without trial - procedural and substantive aspects - Afair trial@ requires an independent judicial arbiter for orders authorising detention. * Insolvency law - creditors= meetings - s 66(3) Insolvency Act - committal to prison as civil contempt/process in aid - substantive justification acknowledged but limited by separation of powers. * Separation of powers and rule of law - institutional independence of judiciary necessary where power to imprison is exercised.
Reported
A non-ratepayer who cannot show a direct, tangible interest lacks constitutional standing to challenge a municipal land sale.
Constitutional standing – section 38 and PAJA – own-interest standing requires a direct, tangible interest; mere objection/participation in notice process insufficient; section 217 does not expand standing absent demonstrable capacity to make a competitive alternative proposal; where applicant lacks standing merits need not be decided absent fraud or gross irregularity.
Reported
A High Court cannot decline jurisdiction merely because a Magistrates' Court has concurrent jurisdiction; NCA does not oust that concurrency.
Civil procedure — concurrent jurisdiction — where High Court and Magistrates’ Court have concurrent jurisdiction plaintiff chooses competent forum; High Court may not decline to hear matters within its jurisdiction except for abuse of process or on statutory grounds; NCA does not impliedly oust High Court jurisdiction; remedies include transfers and costs orders.
Reported
Whether a High Court may rescind a statutory restraint order on inherent/common-law grounds beyond the Act’s specified grounds.
Constitutional and statutory interpretation — Restraint orders under Prevention of Organised Crime Act — Whether section 26(10) limits rescission/variation to listed grounds — Role and limits of High Court inherent powers (s 173) — Pleading and raising constitutional challenges in lower courts — Interaction of curator bonis powers (s 28) with restraint orders.
Leave to appeal refused against a valid security-for-costs order under s 8 of the Close Corporations Act.
Practice and procedure – security for costs – s 8 Close Corporations Act read with Uniform Rule 47 – court’s narrow discretion; delay not necessarily fatal; constitutional/access-to-court challenge to s 8 not established – appellate interference limited.
A secured creditor may rely on s 69(1)(a) statutory demand; mere security alone does not bar winding‑up if no bona fide dispute exists.
Close corporation — Winding‑up — Section 69(1)(a) Close Corporations Act — statutory demand — secured creditor may rely on s 69 deeming provision — winding‑up not an available remedy where debt is bona fide disputed — discretion to refuse liquidation requires solid factual foundation.
Reported
Reinstatement under s82(4) is retrospective and validates corporate acts; s83(4) allows courts to grant just and equitable relief.
Companies Act 71 of 2008 – s82(4) reinstatement by Commission – retrospective effect and validation of corporate acts; s83(4) – court’s remedial power to grant just and equitable relief post-reinstatement; appellate jurisdiction – SCA confined to grounds of leave to appeal; illegality defence not entertainable where excluded from leave.
Directors of a juristic legal practice owe fiduciary duties and may be suspended where trust‑account misappropriation is prima facie established.
Legal Practice Act — directors’ fiduciary duties in juristic legal practices — ignorance of finances not a defence; urgent suspension and appointment of curator bonis to protect trust creditors; rule 7(1) governs challenges to a litigant’s authority to institute proceedings.
Reported
Liquidators may oppose business rescue applications against a company in liquidation; abusive applications justify punitive costs.
Companies law – business rescue – service and locus standi – liquidators of a company in provisional or final liquidation are proper respondents and may oppose business rescue applications; Section 131(6) does not deprive liquidators of that entitlement; Abuse of process – business rescue used to delay liquidation or avoid interrogation – punitive attorney-and-client costs appropriate; Civil procedure – withdrawal of application and costs under rule 41(1)(c).
Reported
A liquidator’s statutory claim to set aside dispositions prescribes once the statutory right accrues, normally by liquidation or appointment.
* Insolvency law – statutory remedies – sections 26–32 of the Insolvency Act create a new right enabling a liquidator to obtain a declaratory order making a person a debtor of the estate. * Prescription – such statutory rights constitute a ‘debt’ for Prescription Act purposes and are subject to extinctive prescription. * Accrual – prescription ordinarily commences when the statutory right accrues (no later than winding-up or liquidator appointment), not upon the court’s declaratory order. * Authority – Barnard and Lynn NNO v Schoeman overruled to the extent inconsistent; Burley Appliances accepted.
Act
19
Finance and Money
Dispute Resolution and Mediation · Environment, Climate and Wildlife
Finance and Money
Business, Trade and Industry
Finance and Money
Business, Trade and Industry · Energy and Natural Resources · Environment, Climate and Wildlife · Finance and Money
Education · Human Rights · Labour and Employment · Public administration
Business, Trade and Industry · Finance and Money
Business, Trade and Industry · Energy and Natural Resources · Environment, Climate and Wildlife
Peace and Security
By-law
17
Business, Trade and Industry · Finance and Money · Public administration
Business, Trade and Industry · Energy and Natural Resources · Finance and Money · Infrastructure and Transportation · Public administration
Repealed
Finance and Money
Repealed
Finance and Money
Finance and Money
Repealed
Finance and Money
Business, Trade and Industry · Finance and Money · Public administration
Repealed
Finance and Money · Labour and Employment · Public administration
Repealed
Finance and Money · Labour and Employment · Public administration
Repealed
Finance and Money · Labour and Employment · Public administration
Government Notice
1
Agriculture and Land
Proclamation
1
Citizenship and Immigration · Education · Environment, Climate and Wildlife · Health and Food Safety · Human Rights · International Law · Labour and Employment · Public administration
To the top