Louw v WP Koöperasie Bpk

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Hoexter AR, E M Grosskopf AR, Nestadt AR, Milne AR, Kriegler Wn AR
• Judgment Date: 28 March 1991
• Hearing Date: 21 March 1991
• Court: Appellate Division

Louw v WP Koöperasie Bpk
1991 (3) SA 593 (A)

1991 (3) SA p593

Citation	1991 (3) SA 593 (A)
Court	Appèlafdeling
Judge	Hoexter AR, E M Grosskopf AR, Nestadt AR, Milne AR, Kriegler Wn AR
Heard	March 21, 1991
Judgment	March 28, 1991

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Koöperatiewe vereniging - Koöperatiewe landbouverenigings - Koöp- erasiewet 91 van 1981 - Verrigtinge deur en teen - Magtiging van amptenare om regstappe te neem - Direksie van koöperasie geregtig om C besluit om regstappe teen debiteure te neem aan werknemer te delegeer - Sodanige delegasie nie deur art 107(1) gelees met art 115(1) verbied nie.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die applikant, wie se boedel in 'n Provinsiale Afdeling finaal gesekwestreer is, het aansoek gedoen om kondonasie vir die laat indiening van 'n prokurasie vir die doeleindes van 'n appèl teen die finale sekwestrasiebevel. Die Hof was van mening dat die vooruitsigte op D welslae van die appèl deurslaggewend sou wees vir die beoordeling van die kondonasie-aansoek en het gevolglik die meriete van die appèl beoordeel. Die applikant het die sekwestrasie-aansoek in die Hof a quo geopponeer, onder andere op grond van die beweerde gebrek aan magtiging van die persoon (ene Van Tonder) wat die sekwestrasie-aansoek namens die respondent, 'n koöperasie geïnkorporeer ingevolge die bepalings van die Koöperasiewet 91 van 1981, aanhangig gemaak het. Van Tonder, die E respondent se assistent-hoofbestuurder: kredietbeheer, het in sy ondersteunende beëdigde verklaring verklaar: 'Ek is behoorlik gemagtig ingevolge 'n direksiebesluit gedateer 16 Februarie 1989 om voormelde koöperasie in hierdie verrigtinge te verteenwoordig.' Die direksiebesluit waarna verwys is het magtiging verleen aan, onder andere die hoofbestuurder en/of die kredietbestuurder of hulle ampsopvolgers, in alle gevalle waar bedrae aan die respondent verskuldig is en hulle dit nodig geag het om regstappe te neem vir die invordering van gemelde skulde in te stel. Die applikant het aangevoer dat die delegering deur F respondent se direksie, waarluidens besluitnemingsbevoegdhede met betrekking tot die instelling van gedingvoering aan respondent se werknemers verleen is, in stryd was met die reël teen verdere delegering deur 'n gedelegeerde van besluitnemingsbevoegdhede wat aan hom toevertrou is. Die applikant het ook betoog dat die delegering gebots het met die bepalings van die Koöperasiewet 91 van 1981 en respondent se statuut. Daar moes, volgens die betoog, by wyse van analogie met die maatskappyreg gefingeer word dat 'n koöperasie by sy inlywing sy G bevoegdhede aan sy direksie delegeer: bygevolg en uit hoofde van die reël delegatus delegare non potest was 'n koöperasie nie by magte om die bevoegdhede wat art 107(1) van die Wet aan hom verleen het op sy beurt aan andere te delegeer nie.

Beslis, dat respondent se raad van direkteure nie 'n gedelegeerde was nie: kragtens die Wet was die direksie met oorspronklike bevoegdhede beklee.

H Beslis, verder, dat die teorie dat 'n maatskappy by inlywing sy bevoegdhede aan sy direksie delegeer het gekunsteld en gedwonge voorgekom het: dit was duidelik in elk geval dat die reël delegatus delegare non potest in daardie verband nie strakke toepassing gevind het nie.

Beslis, verder, dat die stelling dat so 'n delegasie deur art 107(1) gelees met art 115(1) van die Wet verbode sou wees, geverg het dat daar woorde in art 115(1) van die Wet ingelees moes word wat nie daar gestaan het nie en daar geen regverdiging vir so 'n uitleg was nie; inteendeel I dit kon nouliks die bedoeling van die Wetgewer gewees het dat die direksie, self of deur 'n by art 115(1) benoemde persoon, iedere litigasiebesluit ten aansien van so 'n omvangryke besigheid moet neem.

Beslis, derhalwe, dat Van Tonder ten tyde van die instelling van die sekwestrasie-aansoek teen applikant behoorlik daartoe gemagtig was en dat dit gevolglik vrugteloos sou wees om kondonasie te verleen. Aansoek om kondonasie afgewys. J

1991 (3) SA p594

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Co-operative society - Co-operative agricultural companies - Co-operatives Act 91 of 1981 - Proceedings A by and against - Authorisation of officers to institute legal proceedings on behalf of co-operative - Directors of co-operative entitled to delegate to employee the power to decide to institute legal proceedings against co-operative's debtors - Such delegation not prohibited by s 107(1) read with s 115(1) of Act.

Headnote : Kopnota

B The applicant, whose estate had been finally sequestrated in a Provincial Division, applied for condonation of the late filing of a power of attorney for the purposes of an appeal against the final sequestration order. The Court was of the opinion that the prospects of success of the appeal would be decisive of the outcome of the condonation application and accordingly examined the merits of the appeal. The applicant had opposed the sequestration application in the Court a quo, inter alia on the grounds of the alleged lack of C authorisation on the part of the person who had brought the application (one Van Tonder) on behalf of the respondent, a co-operative society incorporated in terms of the provisions of the Co-operatives Act 91 of 1981. Van Tonder, the respondent's assistant-chief manager: credit control, stated in his founding affidavit that: 'I have been properly authorised in terms of a resolution of directors dated 16 February 1989 to represent the said co-operative in these proceedings.' The directors' D resolution referred to gave authority to inter alia the chief manager and/or the credit manager or their successors in all cases where amounts were due to the respondent and they considered it necessary to take action against such persons for the collection of those debts. The applicant contended that the delegation by the respondent's directors, whereby the power to take decisions with regard to the institution of legal proceedings was given to respondent's employees, was in conflict with the rule against further delegation by a delegee of decision-making E powers entrusted to him. The applicant also contended that the delegation conflicted with the provisions of the Co-operatives Act 91 of 1981. According to the argument, by way of analogy with company law, there was a fictitious delegation by the co-operative, at the time of its incorporation, of its powers to its directors: accordingly, and by virtue of the rule delegatus delegare non potest, a co-operative was not entitled to delegate to others the powers given to it under s 107(1) of the Act.

Held, that the respondent's board of directors was not a delegee: in F terms of the Act the directors were given original powers.

Held, further, that the theory that a company at incorporation delegated its powers to its directors appeared forced and artificial: it was clear in any event that the rule delegatus delegare non potest was not rigidly applied in that context.

Held, further, that the contention that such a delegation would be prohibited by s 107(1) read with s 115(1) of the Act required that words be read into s 115(1) of the Act for which there was no justification: G on the contrary it could scarcely have been the intention of the Legislature that the directors of such an extensive business, whether alone or by a person nominated in terms of s 115(1), were required to authorise every decision to litigate.

Held, accordingly, that Van Tonder had been duly authorised at the time of the institution of the sequestration proceedings against the applicant to bring such proceedings and that it would therefore be H futile to grant condonation. Application for condonation dismissed.

Case Information

Appèl teen 'n beslissing in die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling (Howie R). Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak van Kriegler Wn AR.

P B Hodes SC (bygestaan deur F D J Brand SC en F M Klopper ) namens die I applikant het na die volgende gesag verwys: Federated Employers Fire & General Insurance Co Ltd and Another v McKenzie 1969 (3) SA 360 (A); Reinecke v Incorporated General Insurances Ltd 1974 (2) SA 84 (A); Moraliswani v Mamili 1989 (4) SA 1 (A); Mall (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Merino Koöperasie Bpk 1957 (2) SA 347 (K); Joubert (red) Law of South Africa J band 4 para 276 op 254; In re Leeds Banking Co (Howard's case)

1991 (3) SA p595

A (1866) LR 1 Ch App 561; In re County Palatine Loan & Discount Co (Cartmell's case) (1874) 9 Ch App 691; Kuter v South African Pharmacy Board and Others 1954 (2) SA 423 (T); Henochsberg 4de uitg band II op 813; Gower Principles of Modern Company Law 4de uitg op 140; Langeberg Koöperasie v Folscher 1950 (2) SA 618 (K); Baeck & Co v Van Zummeren and B Another 1982 (2) SA 112 (W); Barnard v National Dock Labour Board [1953] 1 All ER 1113 (CA); BEF (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town Municipality and Others 1983 (2) SA 387 (K); SA Milling Co (Pty) Ltd v Reddy 1980 (3) SA 431 (SOK); Interboard SA (Pty) Ltd v Van den Berg 1989 (4) SA 166 (O); United Methodist Church of SA v Sokufundumala 1989 (4) SA 1055 (O); SA Allied Workers' Union and Others v De Klerk and Others 1990 (3) SA 425 (OK) C ; Moosa & Cassim NNO v Community Development Board 1990 (3) SA 175 (A); Barlow's (Eastern Province) Ltd v Bouwer 1950 (4) SA 385 (OK); Chenille Industries v Vorster 1953 (2) SA 691 (O); Optima Fertilizers (Pty) Ltd v Turner 1968 (4) SA 29 (D); Du Plessis en 'n Ander v Tzerefos 1979 (4) SA 819 (O); Corner Shop (Pty) Ltd v Moodley 1950 (4) SA 55 (W); Prudential Shippers SA Ltd v Tempest Clothing Co Ltd 1976 (2) SA 856 (W) D ; Mars The Law of Insolvency in South Africa 8ste uitg; De Waard v Andrew en Thienhaus 1907 TS 727; Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A).

J van der Berg SC (bygestaan deur M H van Heerden ) namens die respondent het na die volgende gesag verwys: Moaki v Reckitt & Colman E (Africa) Ltd and Another 1968 (3) SA 98 (A); Mbutuma v...