THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case number: 580/07

In the matter between:

LETSENG DIAMONDS LIMITED
APPELLANT

and

JCI LIMITED
FIRST RESPONDENT
INVESTEC BANK LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT
JCI INVESTMENT FINANCE (PTY) LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Letseng Diamonds Ltd v J C I Limited (580/07) [2008] ZASCA
157 (27 November 2008).

CORAM:

FARLAM, MTHIYANE, JAFTA, MAYA et CACHALIA JJA

HEARD:

25 AUGUST 2008

DELIVERED:
27 NOVEMBER 2008

SUMMARY:
Companies – shareholders – accuracy in circular convening
meeting regarding validity of contract to which company is party – locus standi of
shareholder to obtain declarator as to accuracy of circular.

______________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________

On appeal from:
Johannesburg High Court (Blieden J sitting as court of
first instance).

1.
The appeal succeeds with costs, including those occasioned by the
employment of two counsel.

2.
The order of the court below in so far as it relates to the appellant’s
application in that court is set aside and replaced by an order in the following
terms:
‘In the Letseng application:
1.
It is declared that the applicant does have locus standi to raise the issues referred to
in the Investec separation application dated 20 April 2007 (as quoted in paragraph 9 of the
judgment in this application).

2.
The main application is postponed sine die  in order for the other issues stated
therein to be adjudicated.

3.
Investec is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs in regard to the separation
application, such costs are to include the costs of two counsel.’

______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________

FARLAM JA (Mthiyane, Maya et Cachalia JJA concurring)

[1] This is an appeal from a judgment of Blieden J, sitting in the
Johannesburg High Court, who held that the appellant, Letseng Diamonds
Ltd, did not have locus standi to raise certain issues which he had ordered, in
terms of Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules, should be separated from the other
issues in an application brought by the appellant against the three

respondents, JCI Ltd, Investec Bank Ltd and JCI Investment Finance (Pty)
Ltd.

[2] The relief originally sought by the appellant, which is a shareholder in
the first respondent, was for an order interdicting a general meeting of the first
respondent’s shareholders from considering two resolutions in which they
were asked to ratify certain agreements between the first and second
respondents and also interdicting the first respondent from paying what was
described as a ‘raising fee’ to the second respondent pursuant to the main
agreement between them. In what follows I shall call this agreement ‘the loan
agreement’.

[3] Subsequently the appellant amended its notice of motion, inter alia, to
claim a declaration that the loan agreement and seven other agreements
between the first and second respondents were void and of no effect. At the
hearing of the application the prayer for the declaration was amended by the
addition of the words ‘alternatively voidable’ after the word ‘void’.

[4] On the same day that the appellant amended its notice of motion to
introduce its prayer for the declaratory relief, three other shareholders in the
first respondent, Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd, Trinity Endowment Fund
(Pty) Ltd and Eljay Investments Incorporated, brought an urgent application
against the respondents, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the loan
agreement was void for vagueness and/or impossibility of performance,
alternatively that the suspensive conditions to which it was subject had not
been fulfilled. In what follows I shall call the application brought by these
shareholders ‘the Trinity application’.

[5] The applications brought by the appellant and by the other three
shareholders  were heard together in the court a quo and in this court they
were argued on consecutive days.

[6] At the start of the hearing in the court a quo the learned judge heard an
application brought by the second respondent for an order separating the

question whether the appellant had locus standi to raise certain issues from
the other issues in the application. There were five issues in respect of which
the appellants’ locus standi was challenged. They all related to the validity of
the loan agreement and the other agreements linked thereto. One of them,
relating to the contention that the loan agreement had lapsed due to non-
fulfilment of suspensive agreements in it and another agreement linked to it,
also arose in the Trinity application.

[7] Blieden J granted the order for the separation of issues and after
hearing further argument he decided the issues in favour of the respondents.
As he considered the issue which arose in both the appellant’s application
and the Trinity application to be dispositive of the latter, he dismissed it with
costs. As far as concerned the appellant’s application he declared that the
appellant had no locus standi to raise the five issues set out in the order he
made in terms of Rule 33(4) and he postponed what he called the main
application sine die in order for the other issues to be adjudicated. He also
ordered the appellant to pay the first and second respondents’ costs in regard
to the separation applications, including the costs of two counsel. His
judgment has been reported: see Letseng Diamonds Ltd v JCI and Others;
Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd and Others v Investec Bank Ltd and
Others 2007 (5) SA 564 (W).

[8] At 570C-E (para [7.14]) of his judgment Blieden J said:
‘In short, the present proceedings are concerned with the right of two shareholders of JCI,
being Letseng [the appellant in this case] and Trinity [for the purposes of his judgment he
referred collectively to the three applicants in the Trinity application as ‘Trinity’: there were
thus in reality four shareholders altogether, not two], to have a suite of agreements, including
the [loan agreement], to which neither of them is a party, declared invalid one and a half years
after their implementation, apart from the raising fee. The parties to the agreements, JCI and
Investec, have at all times regarded all the agreements to be binding on them.’

[9] In the judgment I have prepared in the Trinity matter, which is being
delivered at the same time as this judgment, I consider the question as to
whether the question arising for decision is quite as simple as that and uphold
the contention that the judge mischaracterised the question to be decided. I

proceed to give my reasons for being of the view that the Trinity applicants
had locus standi to raise the separated issue and that their application was
wrongly dismissed on the ground of their alleged lack of locus standi. For
those reasons, which apply with equal force in this appeal, I am satisfied that
this appeal must, like the appeal in the Trinity matter, succeed.

[10] The following order is made:
1.
The appeal succeeds with costs, including those occasioned by the
employment of two counsel.

2.
The order of the court below in so far as it relates to the appellant’s
application in that court is set aside and replaced by an order in the following
terms:
‘In the Letseng application:
1.
It is declared that the applicant does have locus standi to raise the issues referred to
in the Investec separation application dated 20 April 2007 (as quoted in paragraph 9 of the
judgment in this application).

2.
The main application is postponed sine die  in order for the other issues stated
therein to be adjudicated.

3.
Investec is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs in regard to the separation
application, such costs are to include the costs of two counsel.’
………………
IG FARLAM
JUDGE OF APPEAL

JAFTA JA dissenting

[11] I have had the opportunity of reading the judgment of my colleague
Farlam JA. I am unable to agree with the conclusion that the appeal ought to
succeed and the reasons given therefor. In my view the appeal must be
dismissed on the basis that the appellant – as a shareholder – had no locus
standi to raise any of the issues relevant to the determination of the validity of
agreements between JCI Limited (JCI) and Investec Bank Limited (Investec).

[12] During the period between September 1997 and August 2005 JCI had
experienced financial difficulties. It was unable to pay its creditors. It was
facing litigation against a number of creditors and had been served with a writ
of execution for the payment of more than R60 million. As a result it was on
the verge of bankruptcy. Its directors had tried to raise loans from financial
institutions in this country and abroad, without success. Due to lack of
credibility in the market place and the negative reputation JCI had, none of the
financial institutions was willing to lend it money. Eventually Investec agreed
to lend it an amount in excess of R1.1 billion on condition that the loan would
be repaid with interest plus a ‘raising fee’ which exceeded R400 million.

[13] On 19 August 2005 the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (the JSE) on
which JCI was listed, suspended its listing for failure to produce audited
financial statements. The JSE’s Listing Requirements obliged listed
companies to obtain approval of their shareholders before implementing a
certain category of transactions. In terms of these requirements the
companies were required to include, as a condition for implementing such
transactions, prior approval of the shareholders.

[14] To regulate the loan between JCI and Investec, the parties signed a
suite of agreements. Some of those agreements fell within the category for
which approval of shareholders was needed in terms of the Listing
Requirements. As JCI urgently required cash to stave off liquidation, it
requested the JSE to exempt its transactions from shareholder approval. The
JSE permitted the parties to implement the agreements subject to ratification
by JCI’s shareholders. The appellant is one such shareholder.

[15] Investec advanced the money JCI required and the latter’s financial
fortunes improved to the extent that it was able to repay the entire loan with
interest. The raising fee had not become payable by September 2006 when
the appellant launched an urgent application to interdict a general meeting of
JCI’s shareholders. The meeting was called specifically to consider two
resolutions in terms of which shareholders were asked to ratify agreements
referred to above. The appellant also sought an order interdicting JCI from

paying the raising fee. When the matter came before the court a quo, the
interdict was granted by consent.

[16] Further papers were later filed and the appellant amended its relief and
asked that, in addition to the interdict, the relevant agreements be declared
invalid. Since the interdict had already been granted, the declaratory relief
was the only aspect of the appellant’s case which required consideration by
the court.1

[17] Meanwhile, Investec launched an interlocutory application in terms of
which it challenged the appellant’s locus standi to seek the declaratory relief.
It listed the issues in relation to which it claimed that the appellant had no
locus standi. Those issues are (para 9 of the court a quo’s judgment):

‘1.
That the question whether Letseng has locus standi to raise the following
issues be separated from and heard in advance of any other issue in the
Letseng application:

1.1
That the JCI directors at all relevant times constituted a “rogue board”

or a “supine board”, which, to the knowledge of Investec was not

capable of performing and did not perform its fiduciary duties, hence

the ILA [Investec Loan Agreement] and disposal agreement are void.

1.2
That the resolution of the JCI Board which was quorate on 23

August 2005 is invalid and in any event did not in its terms authorise

the signatories of the ILA and Disposal Agreement to sign such

agreements on behalf of JCI.

1.3
That the resolution of the JCI board which was quorate on

23 February 2006 is invalid.

1.4
That the ILA lapsed due to non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions in

the ILA and the disposal agreement.

1 Letseng Diamonds Ltd v JCI Ltd and Others; Trinity Asset Management (Pty) Ltd and Others v
Investec Bank Ltd 2007 (5) SA 564 (W) para 7 (at 569J-570A).

1.5
That the implementation of the ILA would breach the provisions of the

Competition Act, 1988.

2.
That the question whether Trinity has locus standi to raise the issue set out in
1.4 above be separated from and heard in advance of any other issue in the
Trinity application.’

[18] By agreement between the parties the court a quo was asked to
determine only the question of locus standi and to defer the other issues for
consideration at a later date. Having reviewed the relationship between the
company and its shareholders, in the context of contracts concluded by the
company with other parties, the court a quo held that, as a stranger to the
impugned agreements, the appellant did not have locus standi to seek the
declaratory relief. In this regard the court a quo said:

‘To put it another way: a third party cannot interfere in the terms and conditions
contained in an agreement between two other parties. It is between them and them
alone, and the terms of the agreement only operate between them and no one
else…. In the world of company law the above principle is sometimes described as
the rule in Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461 (67 ER 189) when referring to the
relationship between shareholders and a company. This rule preventing strangers
from interfering in contracts is fundamental to any rational system of jurisprudence.

From what has already been said, save for the specified and limited exceptions
mentioned above, a shareholder is a stranger to the company in its dealings with
third parties.

The consequence of the rule is that an individual shareholder cannot bring an action
to complain of an irregularity (as distinct from illegality) in the conduct of the
company’s internal affairs provided that the irregularity is one which can be cured by
a vote of the company in general meeting.’2

[19] The issue in this appeal is whether a shareholder, who has been

2 Above n 1 paras 19-21.

invited to a general meeting of a company for the purpose of ratifying an
agreement entered into by the company and another party, is entitled to seek
an order declaring the concerned agreement invalid. Being a stranger to the
agreement, as was observed by the court a quo, such shareholder cannot
base its right to seek a declarator on the agreement itself.

[20] Counsel for the appellant argued that a shareholder who has been
invited to ratify an agreement in a general meeting is entitled not only to full
disclosure of the relevant facts, but also to accurate information relating to the
agreement to be ratified. Invoking the JSE Listing Requirements, counsel
submitted that the duty to make full disclosure is buttressed by the Listing
Requirements which stipulate that a notice of a meeting must contain all
information necessary to allow the shareholders to make an informed
decision. The circular inviting JCI shareholders to a meeting, argued counsel,
omitted to mention facts relating to the rogue board; non-compliance with
suspensive conditions contained in the agreements in question; the inquoracy
of the board and its impact on the suite of agreements and the requirements
of the Competition Act. Therefore the appellant was, he concluded, entitled to
enforce compliance with the duty.

[21] On the assumption that the omitted facts were established, there can
be no doubt that the above submissions are sound. A shareholder whose right
or entitlement to full and accurate information is infringed, is entitled to
enforce compliance with the duty. But this argument cannot avail the appellant
in circumstances of the present case because the relief sought here is not
enforcement of compliance with the breached duty. Instead the issue here is
whether the appellant is entitled to seek an order declaring the impugned
agreements to be invalid, on the grounds mentioned in para [17] above. It
would be entitled to do so only if it had a direct and substantial interest in
those agreements. But since it was not a party thereto and the agreements
were not concluded for its benefit, it did not have such interest. As a stranger
to the agreements it could therefore not impugn them.3

3 Hillock and Another v Hilsage Investments (Pty) Ltd 1975 (1) SA 508 (A) and Absa Bank Bpk v
C L von Abo Farms BK 1999 (3) SA 262 (O).

[22] The fact that the appellant was invited to ratify the concerned
agreements does not change its status in relation thereto. When it came to
those agreements, the appellant was not a contracting party and
consequently it was a stranger, albeit with limited rights concerning full
disclosure. These rights could, however, entitle the appellant to an order
instructing JCI directors to comply with the requirement of full disclosure by
including the omitted information in the circular. The breach of the duty to
make full and accurate disclosure cannot found a claim for a declaration that
the agreements are invalid. We were not referred to any authority that says it
can nor could I find one.

[23] The general rule is that if two parties enter into an agreement and there
has been non-compliance with its terms, it is only the contracting parties who
can challenge the validity of the agreement. In Hillock4 this court rejected
argument by a third party to the effect that a particular agreement was invalid
because of non-compliance with a condition in another agreement to which it
was not a party. In that case Muller JA said:

‘In my judgment this argument has no merit. The object of clause 8 of the lease was
to render an assignment concluded by the lessee (Hirba) with a third party, without
the prior written consent of the lessor, not binding on the lessor. It is unnecessary to
decide whether, as was contended before us, the provisions of clause 8 were
inserted also for the benefit of the lessee. For present purposes I shall assume,
without deciding, that they were. What is clear, however, is that those provisions, and
indeed also provisions of clause 31, were intended to operate only as between the
parties to the agreement, namely, the lessor and lessee. A third party, such as
National Exposition in the present case, cannot seek to rely on the provisions in
question, unless it has become a party to the agreement, for example by
assignment.’5

4 Above n 3.
5 Hillock above n 3 at 515 A-E.

[24] Relying on Claude Neon Ltd v Germiston City Council6, counsel for the
appellant argued that courts in our law do permit litigants to challenge the
validity of contracts to which they were not parties. The reliance placed on
Claude Neon is clearly misplaced. That case dealt with a different situation:
the application of administrative law to contracts based on administrative
decisions such as an award of a tender. The primary focus of the challenge in
such cases is the validity of the tender award which constitutes administrative
decision. Such decision, in turn, is a precondition for the conclusion of
contracts between the state and other parties. Once the tender is set aside,
the foundation of the contract is removed and the court granting the order
setting aside the tender may, if it is just and equitable to do so, cancel the
agreement concluded in consequence of the tender concerned. In this
instance a challenge based on illegality or irregularity is directed solely at the
tender award and not the subsequent contract.

[25] In Claude Neon the court was asked to review and set aside a tender
and a contract concluded pursuant to the tender concerned. The applicant
challenged the validity of the tender on the ground that it was unfairly awarded
following the wrongful exclusion of its proposal on the basis that it was lodged
late. It contended that the city council had undertaken to inform it about the
tender and that it had a legitimate expectation to be advised of the closing
date for lodging tenders. The city council failed to advise it of the closing date
and as a result its tender proposal was submitted after the deadline. Relying
on s 24 of the interim Constitution, the applicant argued that its right to
procedurally fair administrative action, where its legitimate expectations were
affected, was infringed. Upholding this argument Zulman J said:

‘As a matter of law, the first respondent [the city council], having created a “legitimate
expectation” in favour of the applicant in accordance with s 24(b) of the Constitution
to have “procedurally fair administrative action”, the first respondent did not have the
power to ignore the right given to the applicant by the Constitution and then to award
the tender to the second respondent as it did. Put differently, I believe that the

6 1995 (3) 710 (W). See also Hencor SA Ltd v Transitional Council for Rustenburg and Environs 1998
(2) SA 1052 (T).

applicant is correct in its contention that, until such time as the applicant’s tender was
duly and properly considered by the first respondent, it had no right to enter into any
binding contractual arrangements pursuant to the award of the tender with the
second respondent. In considering the tender submitted to it by the second
respondent and in refusing to consider the tender of the applicant on its merits, the
first respondent exercised a “purely administrative function”. … The conduct of the
first respondent, which the applicant complains of in this regard, amounted to a
failure of “administrative justice” within the meaning of s 24 of the Constitution. Such
failure justifies this Court in setting aside the contract entered into between the first
and second respondents. This is so even although the second respondent may be an
innocent party in this regard’.7

[26] The dictum above makes it clear that Zulman J relied on the
infringement of the right to procedurally fair administrative action to set aside
the contract. Since the tender award which formed the foundation
underpinning the contract was set aside, the learned Judge held the view that
the contract itself ought to be set aside. This was done in order to enable the
city council to call for fresh tenders and to enter into a new contract with the
successful tenderer, without any uncertainty which could arise if the first
contract was left intact. This provides no authority for the proposition that a
stranger to a contract can seek a declaration for its invalidity. Nor does
Claude Neon and similar cases confer legal standing on such strangers to
challenge the validity of a contract. The applicant’s legal standing in Claude
Neon was based on its right to procedurally fair administrative action and not
on the contract concluded pursuant to the tender award. Without challenging
the tender award, the applicant was not entitled to the relief it sought.

[27] In a further attempt to find support for the proposition that a stranger
can impugn the validity of a contract, counsel for the appellant invoked cases
dealing with contracts of suretyship. He argued that a surety who is permitted
to raise defences available to the principal debtor is also allowed to impugn
the validity of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor even
though the surety was not a party to such contract. There is no merit in this

7 Ibid at 720H-721B.

submission. Although the surety’s liability arises out of the suretyship
agreement and not the main agreement, to some extent the suretyship
agreement introduces the surety as a debtor in relation to the main debt. The
surety becomes a co-principal debtor jointly liable with the principal debtor for
the latter’s debt. The suretyship contract is accessory to the main agreement.8

[28] Counsel for the appellant further argued that a stranger is permitted to
seek an order invalidating an employment contract on the basis that it violates
a restraint of trade covenant. The reference to restraint of trade contracts is
not helpful. Ordinarily in cases involving the restraint of trade agreement, the
covenantee seeks to enforce the restraint against the covenantor. If enforced,
the restraint has the effect of nullifying the subsequent agreement entered into
by the covenantor and another party. The convenantee’s legal standing is not
based on the agreement between the covenantor and the other party, but on
the restraint of trade agreement to which he or she was a party.

[29] As regards the alleged impropriety by the directors of JCI pertaining to
the conclusion of the impugned agreements, the court below reasoned that
the company’s articles vested the management and control of the business of
the company in the directors and such control included the power to enter into
the impugned agreements. Accordingly, the court found, if the company’s
directors had conducted its business improperly by entering into the impugned
agreements, it was the company itself, and not the individual shareholders,
which was entitled to seek relief arising from the improper conduct of the
directors. If individual shareholders were allowed, concluded the court, to
interfere and impugn contracts concluded by a company with third parties,
there would be chaos.

[30] Counsel for the appellant criticised the above reasoning. He submitted
that a shareholder may institute a personal action to enforce its individual right
as a member of a company. I agree with this proposition. But counsel went
further to argue that the rule that says the company itself is the only person

8 See Kilroe Daley v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1984 (4) SA 609 (A) at 623 and the authorities there
cited.

who can sue does not apply to the present matter because the appellant was
suing as a shareholder to protect its personal rights. Relying on Petersen and
Another v Amalgamated Union of Building Trade Workers of SA9 counsel
submitted that where a shareholder is seeking to prevent an ultra vires
transaction or seeking to enforce its personal rights, the wrong committed is
against the shareholder itself and not the company. Consequently the rule in
Foss v Harbottle has no application in such a case.

[31] I accept that where a company enters into an agreement which is ultra
vires its articles of association, a shareholder has a right to institute
proceedings in its own name. The conclusion of such agreement violates the
contractual relationship between the company and the shareholder as
evidenced by the articles of association.10 I agree also that where an
individual right of a particular shareholder is breached by the company in
which it is a shareholder, such shareholder has a right to sue in its own name
to protect its right. This was the position in Petersen. In that case the
applicants, members of the respondent trade union, were expelled from the
union. They brought an application for their reinstatement and an interdict
against the union. Invoking the rule in Foss v Harbottle, the union argued that
the applicants could not seek the relief claimed. Kannemeyer J held that the
expulsion did not constitute a wrong committed against the union but was an
act which violated the applicants’ personal rights and as a result they were
entitled to sue in their own names to protect those rights.11

[32] In this case, however, it was common cause that in entering into the
impugned agreements, the directors of JCI acted intra vires. For the
declaratory relief, the appellant relied on the breach of the duty to make full
and accurate disclosure. I have already found that such breach cannot
constitute a basis for the declarator sought.

[33] Regarding the claim for a declaratory order, the court below held that

9 1973 (2) 140 (E).
10 See Gohlke & Schneider v Westies Minerale (Edms) Bpk and Another 1970 (2) SA 685 (A) at 692.
11 Petersen above n 4 at pp 144-5.

the requirements therefor were not established. It concluded correctly in my
view, that the appellant had no substantial and direct interest in the
agreements in question and that a declaratory order will not be binding in the
circumstances of this case. The court relied, among others, on decisions of
this court in Ex parte Nell12 and Cordiant Trading CC v Daimler Chrysler
Financial Services (Pty) Ltd.13 In Cordiant Trading this court said:

‘Although the existence of a dispute between the parties is not a prerequisite for the
exercise of the power conferred upon the High Court by the subsection, at least there
must be interested parties on whom the declaratory order would be binding.’

[34] For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal with costs, including
costs of two counsel.

________________
C N JAFTA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

12 1963 (1) SA 754 (A).
13 2005 (6) A 205 (SCA).

APPEARANCES:

FOR APPELLANT:
M D Kuper SC

A Cockrell

Instructed by
Tugendhaft,
Wapnick
Banchetti
&
Partners,
Johannesburg

Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein

FOR FIRST AND THIRD
RESPONDENTS:

A L Williamson

Instructed by
Mervyn Tabacks Inc, Johannesburg

McIntyre & Van Der Post, Bloemfontein

FOR SECOND
RESPONDENT

S A Cilliers SC

A P Rubens SC

J Blou

A Rowan

Instructed by
Werksmans Inc, Johannesburg

Matsepe Inc, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE:
28 November 2008

STATUS:
Immediate

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.

Letseng Diamonds Ltd v JCI Limited & Others and Trinity Asset
Maganagement (Pty) Ltd & Others v Investec Bank Ltd & Others

The Supreme Court of Appeal yesterday granted appeals by shareholders in JCI
Limited against a judgment delivered in the Johannesburg High Court by Mr Justice
Blieden in which he held that they had no locus standi to ask for a declaratory order
as to whether an agreement concluded between JCI Ltd and Investec Bank Limited
was binding.

Under the agreement Investec Bank Ltd lend and advanced amounts totalling over R1
billion to JCI Ltd, which were repaid with interest. The agreement provided that in
addition to interest on the sums advanced JCI Ltd had to pay to Investec Bank Ltd
what was described as a 'raising fee', amounting to R50 million or 30 per cent of the
aggregate increase in the value of the assets which JCI Ltd furnished as security for its
indebtedness, whichever was the greater. At the time of the application before the
Johannesburg High Court the 'raising fee' amounted to a sum substantially in excess
of R400 million.

In two separate applications which were argued before Mr Justice Blieden
shareholders of JCI Ltd, Letseng Diamonds Ltd and Trinity Asset Management (Pty)
Ltd and two other associated companies sought among other things orders declaring
that the agreement between JCI Ltd and Investec Bank Ltd was not binding for
various reasons. A general meeting of JCI Ltd had been convened to consider a
proposal that the agreement be ratified.

The Supreme Court of Appeal in a majority decision delivered by Appeal Justice IG
Farlam, with whom Appeal Justices Mthiyane, Maya and Cachalia concurred, held
that the applicants did have locus standi to ask for the declaratory orders they sought
because they had the right as shareholders to have accurate information furnished to
them and their fellow shareholders and the right to an order stooping the meeting if
inaccurate information was granted in the circular convening the meeting. It was held
that the Johannesburg High Court had incorrectly held that they lacked locus standi to
seek the declaratory orders. This was because the applicants were entitled to attempt
to show that the circular was inaccurate. In his minority judgment Appeal Justice Jafta
held that the applicants' right to a full and accurate disclosure of information they
needed to exercise their vote either for or against ratification of the agreement did not
give them legal standing to challenge the validity of the agreements as only the
contracting parties could raise that challenge.