Botha v Fick

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1995 (2) SA 750 (A)

Botha v Fick
1995 (2) SA 750 (A)

1995 (2) SA p750

Citation	1995 (2) SA 750 (A)
Case No	713/92
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Joubert AR, E M Grosskopf AR, Nestadt AR, Nienaber AR, Howie AR
Heard	September 26, 1994
Judgment	November 30, 1994

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Sessie — Geldigheid van — Vereistes van opgesom. E

Sessie — Geldigheid van — Sessie van vorderingsreg wat deur dokument bewys word en wat onafhanklik van dokument bestaan — Lewering van dokument aan sessionaris nie 'n geldigheidsvereiste vir sessie nie — Voldoening deur sedent aan sogenaamde 'all effort' leerstuk ook nie 'n geldigheidsvereiste F nie — Lewering van dokument slegs 'n bewysaangeleentheid waar vraag ontstaan of sessie bewys is al dan nie — Plig op geregistreerde aandeelhouer in maatskappy wat sy aandele verkoop om aandelesertifikaat en voltooide oordragsvorm aan koper te lewer nie 'n geldigheidsvereiste vir sessie nie maar 'n plig wat voortspruit uit verbintenisskeppende verkoopooreenkoms. G

Maatskappy — Aandele — Verkoop en oordrag van — Plig op geregistreerde aandeelhouer wat sy aandele verkoop om aandelesertifikaat en voltooide oordragsvorm aan koper te lewer nie 'n geldigheidsvereiste nie vir sessie deur middel waarvan reg en titel ten opsigte van aandele oorgedra word nie maar spruit voort uit verbintenisskeppende verkoopooreenkoms. H

Maatskappy — Aandele — Lederegister — Regstelling van — Aansoek om kragtens art 115 van Maatskappywet 61 van 1973 — Hof het wye diskresie by so 'n aansoek om toe te sien dat billikheid en geregtigheid geskied.

Headnote : Kopnota

I Blote consensus is voldoende om sessie daar te stel. Sessie geskied deur middel van 'n oordragsooreenkoms wat sal saamval met, of voorafgegaan word deur, 'n justa causa. Die justa causa kan 'n verbintenisskeppende ooreenkoms wees. (Op 778F-G.)

'n Vorderingsreg wat in 'n dokument beliggaam word en wat nie onafhanklik van die dokument kan bestaan nie, soos 'n verhandelbare stuk, moet onderskei word van 'n vorderingsreg wat deur 'n dokument bewys word en wat J onafhanklik van die

1995 (2) SA p751

A dokument bestaan, soos 'n aandeel in 'n maatskappy ten opsigte waarvan 'n aandelesertifikaat uitgereik is. Waar laasgenoemde soort vorderingsreg gesedeer word, is nóg lewering van die geskrif aan die sessionaris nóg voldoening deur die sedent aan die sogenaamde leerstuk van 'all effort' 'n geldigheidsvereiste vir die sessie. (Op 778I-J.)

Die regsplig wat op 'n geregistreerde aandeelhouer in 'n maatskappy rus wat sy aandele verkoop om 'n aandelesertifikaat en 'n voltooide oordragsvorm aan die koper te lewer, spruit voort uit die B verbintenisskeppende verkoopooreenkoms en is nie 'n geldigheidsvereiste van die sessie deur middel waarvan die reg en titel ten opsigte van die aandele oorgedra word nie. (Op 778I-J.)

Die reël waarna in Labuschagne v Denny 1963 (3) SA 538 (A) te 543 in fine-544B verwys is, naamlik dat 'waar die bewys van 'n vorderingsreg in 'n geskrif vervat is, lewering van die geskrif aan die sessionaris noodsaaklik is, nie vir die geldigheid daarvan nie, maar vir die voltooiing van 'n sessie van daardie vorderingsreg . . .', is nie 'n reël C van die substantiewe reg nie en dit stel geen geldigheidsvereiste vir die sessie daar nie. Laasgenoemde reël kom slegs op 'n bewysaangeleentheid neer waarvolgens lewering as 'n belangrike faktor - moontlik 'n deurslaggewende faktor - beskou sal word waar die vraag ontstaan of sessie bewys is al dan nie. Hierdie benadering is van toepassing ook in 'n geskil tussen sedent en sessionaris inter partes. (Op 779A-B.)

D In 'n aansoek kragtens art 115 van die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973 vir die regstelling van die lederegister van 'n maatskappy, het die Hof 'n wye diskresie om toe te sien dat billikheid en geregtigheid geskied. En dit is 'to make it reflect the state of affairs which the appellant is entitled to claim that it ought to reflect' (Orr NO and Others v Hill 1929 TPD 885 te 892) en 'to fix with the obligations of membership those persons and those persons only upon whom such obligations should justly and equitably rest' (In re The Contributories of the Rosemount Gold Mining E Syndicate in Liquidation 1905 TH 169 te 188). (Op 780C-D/E.)

Die beslissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling in Botha v Fick en 'n Ander omvergewerp.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Cession — Validity of — Requirements for summarised.

F Cession — Validity of — Cession of right of action evidenced in document but existing independently of document — Delivery of document to cessionary not a requirement for validity of cession — Compliance by cedent with so-called 'all effort' doctrine also not a requirement for validity — Delivery of document an evidential matter only where question arises whether or not cession proved — Duty of registered shareholder in company selling his shares to deliver share certificate and completed transfer form to purchaser not a requirement for validity of cession of G shares but a duty arising from obligatory agreement.

Company — Shares — Sale and transfer of — Duty of registered shareholder selling his shares to deliver share certificate and completed transfer form to purchaser not a requirement for validity of cession whereby right and title to shares transferred but a duty arising from obligatory agreement.

Company — Shares — Register of members — Rectification of — Application for in terms of s 115 of Companies Act 61 of 1973 — Court having wide H discretion in such application to ensure that fairness and justice done.

Headnote : Kopnota

Mere consensus is sufficient to establish a cession. Cession takes place by means of an agreement of cession (agreement of transfer) concurrently with, or preceded by, a justa causa. The justa causa can be an obligatory agreement. (At 778F-G.)

A right of action which has been embodied in a document and which cannot I exist independently of the document, such as a negotiable instrument, should be distinguished from a right of action which is evidenced in a document but which exists independently of the document, such as a share in a company in respect of which a share certificate has been issued. Where the latter kind of right of action is ceded, neither delivery of the writing to the cessionary nor compliance by the cedent with the so-called doctrine of 'all effort' is a requirement for the validity of the cession. J (At 778G-I.)

1995 (2) SA p752

A The legal duty resting on a registered shareholder of a company who has sold his shares to deliver a share certificate and a completed share transfer form to the purchaser arises from the obligatory agreement (between the parties) and is not a requirement for the validity of the cession whereby the right and title to the shares are transferred. (At 778I-J.)

The rule referred to in Labuschagne v Denny 1963 (3) SA 538 (A) at 543 in fine-544B, namely that, 'where a right of action is evidenced in a B document, delivery of the document to the cessionary is necessary, not for the validity but for the completion of a cession of that right of action . . .', is not a rule of substantive law and it does not establish any requirement for the validity of the cession. The latter rule amounts only to a matter of evidence wherein delivery will be considered to be an important factor — possibly a decisive factor — where the question arises whether or not the cession has been proved. This approach is also applicable in a dispute between the cedent and the cessionary inter partes. (At 779A-B.)

C In an application in terms of s 115 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973 for the rectification of the register of members of a company the Court has a wide discretion to ensure that fairness and justice are done. And that is 'to make it reflect the state of affairs which the appellant is entitled to claim that it ought to reflect' (Orr NO and Others v Hill 1929 TPD 885 at 892) and 'to fix with the obligations of membership those persons and those persons only upon whom such obligations should justly and equitably rest' (In re The Contributories of the Rosemount Gold Mining Syndicate in D Liquidation 1905 TH 169 at 188). (At 780C-D/E.)

The decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division in Botha v Fick and Another reversed. E

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Witwatersrandse Plaaslike Afdeling (M J Strydom R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Howie AR.

W H Trengove SC (bygestaan deur W H G van der Linde) namens die appellant (die appellant se eerste stel betoogshoofde is voorberei deur L S Weinstock SC en J L C J van Vuuren): The Court a quo found that F appellant's right to have the first respondent sign a transfer form had become prescribed. This finding is not correct in law. The Court a quo upheld the first respondent's contention that the appellant's claim was for a debt such as referred to in s 11(d) of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969. The Court a quo erred in that it misconstrued the true nature of the relief the appellant was seeking. The appellant was not claiming a G transfer of shares. The appellant was calling upon the first respondent to sign a transfer certificate over to him which would enable the second respondent to transfer the shares to the appellant. The shares for which the appellant had paid were his shares and he was not seeking a transfer of property. Ownership in and of the shares had already been ceded to him H by the first respondent. In other words, the appellant had become, by virtue of cession, the true owner of the incorporeal rights comprising the shares and what he sought was to have those shares registered in his name in terms of ss 91 and 133 of the Companies Act 71 of 1973. Incorporeal rights are transferred by way of cession in the ordinary course and no separate act of delivery or traditio is required to vest any rights in the transferee. See...