2026-09-24T05:04:59Zhttps://univendspace.univen.ac.za/server/oai/request

oai:univendspace.univen.ac.za:11602/6842024-09-10T14:38:22Zcom_11602_1946com_11602_1939com_11602_1895com_11602_737col_11602_2163col_11602_738

Nwafor, A. O. Letuka, P. P. Phiri, Siphethile 2017-06-09T13:44:34Z 2017-06-09T13:44:34Z 2017-05-18 Phiri, S. 2017. Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. . . http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 Phiri S. Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. []. , 2017 [cited yyyy month dd]. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 Phiri, S. (2017). <i>Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008</i>. (). . Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 Phiri, Siphethile. <i>"Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008."</i> ., , 2017. http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 TY - Dissertation AU - Phiri, Siphethile AB - Once a company is incorporated it becomes a juristic entity, distinct and separate from its incorporators. Thus, the company bears its own liabilities. However, section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 grants the courts the discretion to disregard the separate legal personality of a company where there is unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company. However, the challenge is that the section fails to define what constitutes ‘‘unconscionable abuse’’. This research thus investigated what constitutes unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as the ground for piercing the corporate veil. Simply put, this research identified the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be pierced, given the confounding provisions of section 20(9). In unravelling the problems posed by the said section, the researcher employed a combination of doctrinal legal research methodology and comparative research methodology which involve the scrutiny of ‘black letter of the law’ and the laws of other jurisdictions. The result from this extensive inquiry is that the term ‘unconscionable abuse’ is a legislative derivate from the various terms used by the courts at common law to justify the disregarding of the separate legal personality of the corporate entity. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion reached is that just as those terms used at common law are confounding, so shall this legislative innovation. Therefore, in order to resolve this problem each matter should be dealt with based on its peculiar facts. DA - 2017-05-18 DB - ResearchSpace DP - Univen KW - Company KW - Director KW - Juristic person KW - Lifting of the veil KW - Piercing the corporate veil KW - Juristic person KW - Unconscionable abuse LK - https://univendspace.univen.ac.za PY - 2017 T1 - Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 TI - Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11602/684 ER - LLM Department of Mercantile Law Once a company is incorporated it becomes a juristic entity, distinct and separate from its incorporators. Thus, the company bears its own liabilities. However, section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 grants the courts the discretion to disregard the separate legal personality of a company where there is unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company. However, the challenge is that the section fails to define what constitutes ‘‘unconscionable abuse’’. This research thus investigated what constitutes unconscionable abuse of the juristic personality of the company as the ground for piercing the corporate veil. Simply put, this research identified the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be pierced, given the confounding provisions of section 20(9). In unravelling the problems posed by the said section, the researcher employed a combination of doctrinal legal research methodology and comparative research methodology which involve the scrutiny of ‘black letter of the law’ and the laws of other jurisdictions. The result from this extensive inquiry is that the term ‘unconscionable abuse’ is a legislative derivate from the various terms used by the courts at common law to justify the disregarding of the separate legal personality of the corporate entity. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion reached is that just as those terms used at common law are confounding, so shall this legislative innovation. Therefore, in order to resolve this problem each matter should be dealt with based on its peculiar facts. 1 online resource (ix, 99 leaves) en University of Venda Company Director Juristic person Lifting of the veil Piercing the corporate veil Juristic person Unconscionable abuse UCTD Piercing the corporate veil: a critical analysis of Section 20(9) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 Dissertation open.access