| dc.contributor.author |
Cassim, Rehana
|
|
| dc.date.accessioned |
2026-02-19T06:31:07Z |
|
| dc.date.available |
2026-02-19T06:31:07Z |
|
| dc.date.issued |
2022 |
|
| dc.identifier.citation |
(2022) 139(4) South African Law Journal 741–756. |
en_US |
| dc.identifier.issn |
ISSN 0258-2503 |
|
| dc.identifier.uri |
https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32160 |
|
| dc.description.abstract |
This note critically analyses the judgment in Miller v Natmed Defence (Pty) Ltd
2022 (2) SA 554 (GJ), in which the court ruled on the validity of the removal of a
director by the company’s sole shareholder. Three issues were in contention: whether
a shareholder must furnish the director with reasons for the proposed resolution to
remove a director from office under s 71 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008; whether a
shorter notice period for the shareholders’ meeting was legally acceptable; and whether
the meeting that was held telephonically was valid. The court ruled that the director’s
removal from office was valid and dismissed his request to be reinstated as a director.
This note critically analyses the judgment and argues that the court misinterpreted
some aspects of s 71 of the Act. |
en_US |
| dc.language.iso |
en |
en_US |
| dc.publisher |
South African Law Journal |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Companies Act 71 of 2008 |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Removal of Directors |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Shareholder Removal |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Reasons for Removal |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Notice period of meetings |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Telephonic Meetings |
en_US |
| dc.subject |
Damages for loss of office |
en_US |
| dc.title |
Confusion in the Removal of Directors by Shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008: Miller v Natmed (Pty) Ltd |
en_US |
| dc.type |
Article |
en_US |