Case Notes: The right of a director to participate in the management of a company: Kaimowitz v Delahunt 2017 (3) SA 201 (WCC)

Case Notes: The right of a director to participate in the management of a company: Kaimowitz v Delahunt 2017 (3) SA 201 (WCC)

Authors Rehana Cassim

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer in Law, University of South Africa, Pretoria; Attorney and Notary Public of the High Court of South Africa
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 172 – 187

Abstract

None

Case Notes: The removal of directors in state-owned companies: shareholders’ franchise in jeopardy? Molefe & others v Minister of Transport & others

Case Notes: The removal of directors in state-owned companies: shareholders’ franchise in jeopardy? Molefe & others v Minister of Transport & others

Authors Tebello Thabane

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, Commercial Law Department, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 155 – 171

Abstract

None

The conflicts rule in respect of contractual capacity in the preliminary Draft Uniform Act on the Law of Obligations in the OHADA region

The conflicts rule in respect of contractual capacity in the preliminary Draft Uniform Act on the Law of Obligations in the OHADA region

Authors Eesa A Fredericks

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Senior lecturer, University of Johannesburg
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 138 – 154

Abstract

None

Resolving the ‘benefits’ dilemma

Resolving the ‘benefits’ dilemma

Authors K Newaj

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law, University of Pretoria; Principal Analyst, Competition Commission SA
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 91 – 114

Abstract

This article considers whether the ambiguities that have existed in labour law for some time now, in respect of the unfair labour practice relating to the provision of benefits, have been resolved following the Labour Appeal Court decision in Apollo Tyres. This unfair labour practice has been widely discussed, based on the varying interpretations of what constitutes ‘benefits’. The courts initially adopted a narrow approach to defining the term ‘benefits’, a term that is not defined in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995. However, this approach was replaced by an expansive and wide-ranging interpretation. This article seeks to assess the suitability of the Apollo Tyres judgment in view of the fact that it appears to be reverting to the broad approach adopted under the Industrial Court dispensation in its quest to interpret and apply the general right to unfair labour practices. The question that arises is whether this is an appropriate approach considering the codification effected by the Labour Relations Act, which has undoubtedly resulted in an altered manifestation of the unfair labour practice concept.

Value-conscious interpretation of taxing provisions using ubuntu: An appropriate decolonised interpretive approach?

Value-conscious interpretation of taxing provisions using ubuntu: An appropriate decolonised interpretive approach?

Authors Fareed Moosa

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Head of the Department of Mercantile and Labour Law, University of the Western Cape
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 71 – 90

Abstract

By virtue of section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, interpretation of tax legislation must occur on a principled basis through the prism of the Bill of Rights. Ubuntu is a constitutional value that informs the Bill of Rights’ spirit. Thus, ubuntu is a value that, where appropriate, may be used in the interpretation of fiscal legislation. Applying ubuntu when an ambiguous taxing provision is interpreted favours a finding that the provision is not to be interpreted contra fiscum, but rather against the taxpayer who must then pay the greater amount of tax permissible under the taxing provision, unless the taxpayer can show compelling reasons why a construction contra fiscum ought to be favoured.

The safeguards and protective measures for property owners during business rescue

The safeguards and protective measures for property owners during business rescue

Authors Maleka Femida Cassim

ISSN: 1996-2185
Affiliations: Associate Professor, Mercantile Law Department, University of Pretoria; Attorney and Notary Public of the High Court of South Africa.
Source: South African Mercantile Law Journal, Volume 30 Issue 1, 2018, p. 40 – 70

Abstract

It is an undeniable dilemma for a landlord or property owner to find its property in the possession of a company under business rescue. Not only does the tenant often remain in occupation of the leased premises during business rescue, but additionally fails to make ongoing payment of rent. The goals of business rescue must be carefully balanced with the prejudice caused to property owners by virtue of the moratorium during business rescue. The moratorium encroaches on the proprietary rights of third parties, who are unable to recover their property from a company during business rescue. My earlier article — MF Cassim (2017) 29/3 SA Merc LJ 419—focused on the effect of the moratorium on the property owner. The present article focuses on the protective measures available, and which ought to be available, for property owners whose property is in the possession of a company under business rescue. The safeguards built into the Companies Act 71 of 2008 for property owners are discussed. Guiding principles are proposed for the lifting of the moratorium in business rescue by both the courts and business rescue practitioners, first, for the repossession of property by the property owner, and second, for the recovery of current rent and other compensation by the property owner during business rescue. Whether post-commencement claims for rent have, and should have, a superpriority status as post-commencement finance or as an expense of the administration is also considered.