THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case No: 687/10

In the matter between:

MARK WILLIAM LYNN NO

FIRST APPELLANT

TINTSWALO ANNAH NANA MAKHUBELE NO

SECOND APPELLANT

and

COLIN HENRY COREEJES

FIRST RESPONDENT

LEON LOOCK

SECOND RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Lynn NO v Coreejes (687/2010) [2011] ZASCA 159
(28 September 2011)

Coram:
LEWIS, SNYDERS, MALAN, MAJIEDT AND SERITI JJA

Heard:
1 SEPTEMBER 2011

Delivered:
28 SEPTEMBER 2011

Summary:
Civil proceedings ─ s 382(1) of Companies Act 61 of 1973 ─
institution of action by two of three liquidators not a nullity ─ s 382(1) not containing a
prohibition ─ therefore not analogous with s 6(1) of Trust Property Control Act 57 of
1988.

______________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________

On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (De Vos AJ sitting as
court of first instance):
1 The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
2 The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with the
following order:
‘The application is dismissed with costs.’
______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________

MAJIEDT JA (LEWIS, SNYDERS, MALAN and SERITI JA concurring)

[1] Section 382(1) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973,1 provides that:
‘When two or more liquidators have been appointed they shall act jointly in performing their
functions as liquidators and shall be jointly and severally liable for every act performed by
them jointly.’
The question for determination in this appeal is whether non-compliance with
this provision renders the power of attorney given by two of three liquidators
for the institution of an action a nullity and, if not, whether it is in law capable
of ratification. In the high court De Vos AJ answered the first part of the
question in the affirmative, holding that it was indeed a nullity incapable of
subsequent ratification.  He upheld this as a point in limine in the respondents’
favour and granted their application to strike the appellants’ claim in terms of
Rule 30A. This appeal is with his leave.

[2] The appellants and one Mr J M Oelofsen were appointed as joint
liquidators of Wagmaar Investments CC (Wagmaar) which had been

1 The repeal of this Act by the Companies Act 71 of 2008 has no bearing on this appeal.

voluntarily wound up in terms of a special resolution of March 2005. The
winding-up was preceded by a judgment in October 2004 for payment of the
sum of R3 409 907.33, interest and punitive costs against Wagmaar in favour
of Total SA (Pty) Ltd (Total) after a lengthy trial before Maluleke J.

[3] During July 2008 the joint liquidators, as plaintiffs, instituted action
against the respondents, as defendants. Their cause of action appears to be
the actio Pauliana. The details of the claim are not material to the issue for
determination. It would suffice to state that the respondents were sued on the
basis of allegations that they, as trustees of the Kiriake Trust, received
Wagmaar’s transport and farming businesses (with the assets thereof) and
certain of Wagmaar’s immovable and movable property for no consideration
in return, as part of a fraudulent scheme designed by Wagmaar. The
respondents were cited in their representative (qua trustees) and personal
capacities.

[4] A procedural challenge in terms of Uniform Rule 7 by the respondents
to the authority of the attorneys representing the liquidators in the action
developed into an objection by way of a point in limine before the high court,
when it became apparent that Oelofsen had not joined the appellants in
instructing their attorneys to institute the action. At the time of institution of the
action Oelofsen was still a joint liquidator. He resigned thereafter, citing a
potential conflict of interest. The Master accepted his resignation and
appointed the appellants as joint liquidators of Wagmaar’s estate.

[5] In the high court the appellants implicitly accepted that only two of the
three liquidators had mandated the institution of the action and the matter was
argued on that basis, as was also the case in this court. The appellants relied
on an indemnity agreement signed by all three liquidators (including Oelofsen)
with Total in respect of the action and other related proceedings and an ex
post facto ratification by the appellants of the institution of the action to cure

this defect. The respondents, on the other hand, persisted in their contention
regarding the attorneys’ authority, arguing that all the liquidators did not
authorise the institution of the action. They contended that s 382(1) of the Act
requires that the liquidators had to act jointly in giving such authorisation and
that the indemnity could not cure the defect. The institution of action could not
be ratified ex post facto since it was a nullity. As stated, the respondents’
argument found favour with the court below.

[6]      In coming to the conclusion that the unauthorised action is a nullity and
incapable of ratification, De Vos AJ relied on Powell & another v Leech &
another; Leech & others v Powell & others2 in which two liquidators had been
appointed by the Master in respect of a company in provisional liquidation.
Only one of them sought and obtained a search warrant in terms of s 69 of the
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936. In an application for the setting aside of the search
warrant, Sutherland AJ held that the provisions in s 382(1) of the Act, which
require liquidators to act jointly, were peremptory and that subsequent
ratification of the decision to apply for the search warrant was legally
untenable. He put it thus:3
‘Ratification after the event is not open to a liquidator who did not participate in the original
decision. Section 382 clearly contemplates a joint decision prior to action taking place. There
is no room to make a joint decision after the act has been performed. Comparisons between
the powers of liquidators and the powers of directors to ratify each other’s deeds are
fundamentally inapt in this context.’
I am of the view, however, that Powell is distinguishable on the facts. Powell
dealt with a situation where ratification was no longer possible, since the
warrant had been applied for without the requisite consent and had been
issued and executed. The present matter is different – here a procedural
challenge was made in respect of the institution of an action by two of three
liquidators, and the proceedings have not been finalised.

2 Powell & another v Leech & another; Leech & others v Powell & others [1997] 4 All SA 106
(W).
3 At 118g-h.

[7] The respondents relied on Lupacchini NO & another v Minister of
Safety and Security4 in supporting the judgment of the court below. That case
concerned the question whether non-compliance with s 6(1) of the Trust
Property Control Act 57 of 1988 rendered any acts by the trustees a nullity.
Action had been instituted by trustees of a trust, but one of them was
authorised by the Master to act as a trustee only after the action was
instituted. Section 6(1) reads as follows:
‘Any person whose appointment as trustee in terms of a trust instrument, section 7 or a court
order comes into force after the commencement of this Act, shall act in that capacity only if
authorized thereto in writing by the Master’.
It was not in issue that institution of the action in these circumstances was in
contravention of s 6(1). In deciding that the proceedings instituted by a trustee
without authorisation was a nullity, Nugent JA analysed a number of decisions
and came to the conclusion that ‘. . . [there are] no indications that legal
proceedings commenced by unauthorised trustees were intended to be valid.
On the contrary, the indications seem . . . to point the other way’.5 An
important consideration in reaching that conclusion, said Nugent JA, is the
fact that there is no criminal sanction stipulated in respect of a trustee who
acts without authorisation, leading to the inescapable inference that the
legislature intended such acts to be a nullity, ‘because otherwise a
contravention of the prohibition would have no consequences at all’.6

[8] I turn next to a consideration of the legal consequences of non-
compliance with s 382(1). A useful point to start with, I believe, is to determine
whether s 382(1) contains a general prohibition. In order to make such a
determination and also to examine whether Lupacchini can be applied to this
case, a brief consideration of the role of liquidators under the Act, as opposed
to that of trustees under the Trust Property Control Act, is required. The law
reports and the text books are replete with descriptions of what a liquidator is

4 Lupacchini NO & another v Minister of Safety and Security 2010 (6) SA 457 (SCA).
5 Para 22.
6 Paras 17 and 18, he then continued to cite Goldblatt J in Simplex (Pty) Ltd v Van der Merwe
& others NNO 1996 (1) SA 111 (W) at 113C-D.

and does. I adopt for present purposes the following description in M S
Blackman et al Commentary on the Companies Act vol 3 at 14–288:
‘. . . a person who holds an office under the Companies Act, which office confers on him
various powers to enable him to wind-up the company. One of these powers is the power to
bind the company’s estate; another is the power to institute and defend proceedings in the
company’s name.’
First and foremost and at the risk of stating the obvious, it is well to remind
oneself that a liquidator is a creature of statute; he or she derives his or her
powers from the Act and the Insolvency Act and may act within the bounds of
those powers only. Although there are some analogies to be drawn between
the office of a liquidator and that of a trustee (eg the fiduciary nature of both),
a liquidator is not a trustee in the strict sense.7 The estate of the company in
liquidation remains vested in the company itself (save of course in those
exceptional circumstances where a court orders in terms of s 361(3) of the Act
that all or part of the company’s property shall vest in the liquidator); the
liquidator merely administers the estate as laid down by statute8 and does so
under the control of the Master.9 In a trust on the other hand, the trust estate
vests in the trustees who must administer it.10

[9] In the case of a trust the trust deed is its ‘constitutive charter’11 and
‘[w]hen fewer trustees than the number specified [in the trust deed] are in
office, the trust suffers from an incapacity that precludes action on its
behalf’.12 Even where trustees act jointly, they cannot in law bind the trust
estate where they are not the requisite number stipulated in the trust deed,
because ‘the trust’s incapacity during this period does not arise from the joint
action requirement, but from the trust’s incapacity while a sub-minimum of
trustees held office’.13  The difference between s 6(1) of the Trust Property

7 M S Blackman et al at 14–288; P M Meskin Henochsberg on the Companies Act 5 ed Vol 1
at 789.
8 Blackman et al, ibid.
9 Section 381 of the Act.
10 Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa v Parker & others 2005 (2) SA 77 (SCA) para
10.
11 Ibid.
12 Para 11.
13 Para 13.

Control Act and s 382(1) of the Companies Act is stark – appointment as a
trustee by the Master is a sine qua non for a trustee to be clothed with the
requisite authority to act on behalf of the trust, whereas s 382(1) does not
contain such a requirement. A mere reading of the two sections reveals a
marked difference; in this regard the use of the word ‘only’ in s 6(1) is
significant, since this is indicative of invalidity in the case of non-compliance.

[10] It will be recalled that in Lupacchini the absence of a criminal sanction
in s 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act led Nugent JA to the conclusion that
non-compliance with that section renders all acts a nullity.14 Section 382(1) of
the Act imposes no criminal sanction. The consequences of joint action,
however, are set out in the second part of the subsection, that is joint and
several liability for every act performed jointly. Nothing is said of the validity or
otherwise of an act that is not performed jointly. For these reasons
Lupacchini is not applicable in this instance.

[11] The primary objective of s 382(1) is to ensure that joint liquidators act
jointly. The second part of the section which relates to joint liability is in my
view decisive in this regard. It imposes joint and several liability on liquidators
who act jointly. Nothing more is said and it is not necessary to inquire into any
implication that might flow from this provision. The subsection does not visit
the acts of the liquidators who did not act jointly with nullity.

[12] Section 386(4)(a) empowers a liquidator to, inter alia, bring or defend
legal proceedings on behalf of the company. The section requires a liquidator
to be duly authorised by a meeting of creditors or members (s 386(3)) or by
the Master in case of urgent legal proceedings for the recovery of outstanding
accounts (s 386(4)) before he or she can bring such proceedings on behalf of
the company. Our courts have held that if a liquidator litigates without the

14 Para 7 above.

prescribed authority, the court may refuse to allow him his costs out of the
company’s assets and he may have to pay such costs himself.15 The litigation
is not a nullity, it merely has potential adverse costs implications for the
liquidator. And there is ample authority that a person against whom the
unauthorised liquidator is litigating may not object to such lack of
authorisation, for it is a matter between the liquidator and the creditors.16
Retrospective sanction of unauthorised litigation is available to the liquidator
in appropriate instances, either from the creditors or members under s 386(3)
or, if refused, from the Master under s 387(2) and, if the Master refuses, from
the court under s 386(5) read with s 387(3).17

[13]     Actions in terms of s 382(1) are prohibited only in the absence of
consent of all the liquidators. In Neugarten & others v Standard Bank of South
Africa Ltd18 the absence of consent by all the members of a company for
security furnished by that company for an obligation of another company
controlled by one or more of the directors of the first-mentioned company, in
contravention of s 226(2)(a) of the Act, was considered and resolved as
follows:19
‘The transactions set out in ss (1) of s 226 are prohibited or illegal only in the absence of the
consent of all the members. The question in any specific case is whether such consent has
been given: if it has, the transaction is not prohibited or illegal. Consequently, to postulate that
the transaction is prohibited and illegal is to beg the question. If the requisite consent is given
to the transaction in initio, it is a valid transaction. If the transaction is subsequently ratified by
the non-consenting members, the ratification relates back to the original transaction and the
position is the same as if consent had originally been given.’

15 Waisbrod v Potgieter & others 1953 (4) SA 502 (W) at 507H.
16 Dublin City Distillery (Great Brunswick Street, Dublin) Limited & another v Doherty [1914]
AC 823; Waisbrod v Potgieter, supra, at 507G-H; Bowman NO v Sacks & others 1986 (4) SA
459 (W) at 461G; Griffin & others v The Master & another (Commins & another intervening)
2006 (1) SA 187 (SCA) para 7.
17 Henochsberg on the Companies Act supra at 822.
18 Neugarten & others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 1989 (1) SA 797 (A).
19 At 803D-E.

[14] Where an act is done by some and not all the liquidators it may not
bind the company in liquidation.20 But it does not follow that the conduct of the
liquidator may not be ratified. In Smith v KwaNonqubela Town Council21 the
same approach as in Neugarten was followed, albeit in a different context:22
‘The next attack upon the purported ratification was along these lines: Watson’s contentious
act was an administrative one; it was not authorised by law; an unauthorised act is invalid; an
invalid act cannot be ratified. The argument, I fear, already breaks down at the first
proposition and it becomes unnecessary to consider the others. The launching of legal
proceedings is not an administrative act but a procedural one open to any member of the
public. Watson apparently believed on insubstantial grounds that he had the necessary
authority to act on behalf of the town council. He was wrong. His expressed intention was to
act on behalf of the town council and not on his own behalf. It is a general rule of the law of
agency that such an act of an “unauthorised agent” can be ratified with retrospective effect. . .’.

[15]     Two of the three liquidators authorised the institution of the action. The
non-consenting third liquidator then resigned and his resignation was
accepted. The remaining two liquidators were then appointed by the Master
as the only joint liquidators in the estate. They jointly pursued the litigation, as
such ratifying their procedural act taken initially. As no time limit within which
they had to take or ratify the institution of the action arises in the case, that is
the end of the matter.23

[16] For these reasons the high court erred in upholding the objection in
limine. It should have dismissed with costs the application to strike out the
claim in terms of Rule 30A.  The appeal must consequently be upheld and the
following order is issued:

20 Cooper v The Master & others 1996 (1) SA 962 (N).
21 Smith v KwaNonqubela Town Council 1999 (4) SA 947 (SCA).
22 Para 10.
23 Smith para 12.

1 The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

2 The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with the following
order:

‘The application is dismissed with costs.’

___________________

S A MAJIEDT

JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

Counsel for appellants
:
C E PUCKRIN SC
M P VAN DER MERWE

Instructed by

:
Alex May Inc.

Lovius Block, Bloemfontein

Counsel for respondents
:
A C FERREIRA SC

D F BLIGNAUT

Instructed by

:
Bekker Attorneys

Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN COURT OF
APPEAL
28 September 2011

STATUS: Immediate

M W LYNN & ANOTHER v  COREEJES (687/10)

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and
does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) today upheld an appeal against a judgment
and order of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria in the above matter.

The high court had upheld an objection in limine and granted an application to strike
the appellants’ claim in terms of Rule 30A. The high court held that, where two of
three liquidators had authorised the institution of an action, it was a nullity incapable
of ratification, since s 382(1) of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 required that
liquidators act jointly. The SCA held that the high court had erred in this regard.
Section 382(1) does not contain a general prohibition and is not analogous with s
6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988. Actions in terms of s 382(1) are
prohibited only in the absence of consent of all liquidators; such consent can be
granted ex post facto through subsequent ratification. The high court should
therefore have dismissed the application to strike out the appellants’ claim.

-- ends --