Institutional Repository

Confusion in the Removal of Directors by Shareholders under the Companies Act 71 of 2008: Miller v Natmed (Pty) Ltd

Show simple item record

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


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search UnisaIR


Browse

My Account

Statistics