Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria  ||  Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional  ||  Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law  ||  P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe  ||  Delhi HC: Illegal Termination Does Not Automatically Entitle Employee to Reinstatement or Back Wages  ||  Gujarat High Court: Forcing Toddler to Attend Court 6 Hours Weekly For Grandfather Visits is Unjust  ||  Supreme Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Plea, Directs Timely Resolution of Disciplinary Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court Rejects NHAI Review on Solatium Retrospectivity, Bars Reopening Settled Claims  ||  SC: Excise Duty Exemptions Based on Intended Use Must be Construed Liberally For Assessee  ||  Supreme Court: DSC Personnel Eligible For Second Pension; Allows Condonation of Shortfall    

Islandsite Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd vs. National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others - (01 Dec 2023)

Directors did not have the authority to represent the company in the POCA litigation

Company

The Appellant (the company) has been in business rescue in terms of Chapter 6 of the Companies Act, 2008. The fourth and fifth respondents on appeal were appointed business rescue practitioners (the BRPs). The first respondent, the National Director of Public Prosecutions (the NDPP), launched an application in the Free State Division of the High Court of South Africa, Bloemfontein, (the high court) in terms of Section 26(3) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (the POCA litigation). It was brought on an ex parte basis, without prior notice to the company, the BRPs or the other Respondents. The high court granted a provisional restraint order in respect of property of the company and also of the second, third, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents.

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the high court in which Musi JP granted an order declaring that attorneys appointed by the directors of Islandsite Investments 180 (Pty) Ltd (the company), which was in business rescue, did not have authority to represent the company in an application brought by the National Director of Public Prosecutions (the NDPP) to restrain assets of the company under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, 1998 (the POCA litigation). A second order made clear that, the directors and shareholders had no standing to oppose the POCA litigation without the approval of the business rescue practitioners (the BRPs).

The Supreme Court of Appeal analysed the provisions of chapter 6 of the Companies Act relating to business rescue and concluded that those provisions accorded to the BRPs the authority to represent the company in the POCA litigation. Following previous cases of this court, it was held that ‘the facilitation of the rehabilitation of a company expressly include management of property’ and that management should be widely construed.

In the light of the provisions of chapter 6 of the Companies Act, it was held that the directors did not have the authority to represent the company in the POCA litigation. The appeal was dismissed. Since the directors did not have authority to appoint the attorneys concerned to represent the company, the company could not be held liable for the costs of the appeal and the directors were ordered to pay those costs personally.

Tags : BRPS   DIRECTORS   AUTHORITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved