Department of Mercantile and Private Law

Permanent URI for this community

https://univendspace.univen.ac.za/handle/11602/1946

Browse

Browsing Department of Mercantile and Private Law by Subject "Companies Act 71 of 2008"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemEmbargo
    Probing the Liability of Company Directors Against Claims by Shareholders Under Section 218(2) of the Companies Act 71 Of 2008
    (2025-05-16) Munyai, Zwivhuya; Simba, C.; Lavhengwa, L. S.
    The principle of separate legal personality is fundamental in company law, facilitating the formation of companies, the appointment of directors, and capital raising. Directors, as outlined in section 66 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, are central to a company and responsible for financial decisions. Consequently, they owe fiduciary duties and a duty of care to the company rather than directly to shareholders. However, section 218(2) introduces a remedy allowing any interested party, including shareholders, to hold directors liable for losses due to breaches of the Act. This provision's implications are heightened by section 22(1), which prohibits reckless trading by directors. While it does not explicitly target directors, it allows for their personal liability when the company operates carelessly or recklessly. The statutory restriction against reckless trading, coupled with a solvency and liquidity test in section 4, emphasises directors' responsibilities towards shareholders. This test mandates that directors ensure the company can meet its debts as they arise and remain solvent. The question then arises whether section 218(2) offers an effective remedy for shareholders to hold directors accountable for fiduciary breaches. This study employed a doctrinal approach to analyse the scope of section 218(2), examining directors' liability and shareholder protection. It concludes that while section 218(2) presents a new remedy, its enforceability is hampered by interpretive challenges and policy considerations. Thus, existing remedies like derivative actions may be more effective for holding directors personally liable for breaches of fiduciary duties.