A civil dream team of BDK Attorneys vigorously fought for the rights of a widow who sought access to the company records of a Company founded by her late husband. The dream team consisted of Director, Amorette Gangel, candidate attorney Sandra Andrade-Nobrega and Advocate Anmarli van der Merwe.
On 28 November 2025, the Honourable T-Pringle AJ ordered the Company and the Company’s Director to produce various records of the company to the widow.
The High Court was called upon to determine an application brought by the widow and appointed administrator of the estate of her late husband who sought access to a range of company records held by the Company pursuant to Section 50 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000, the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 and the Companies Act 71 of 2008.
The widow required the documents requested in order to establish whether her late husband was a shareholder of the Company at the time of his death, a fact that would materially affect both the joint estate and the administration of her late husband’s estate.
The Respondents (the Company and its Director) resisted disclosure on the basis that the widow had not proved that the deceased was a shareholder at the time of his passing. Central to the Respondents’ argument was the version of the Second Respondent, the deceased’s son and the Company’s sole current director, who alleged that he became the sole shareholder on 28 April 2017.
The Court found this version wholly inadequate. Despite conceding that the deceased had been the Company’s sole shareholder from inception, the Respondents produced no evidence to establish a lawful transfer of shares to the Second Respondent. The “securities register” he relied upon was found to be non-compliant with Section 50 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 and Regulation 32 of the Companies Regulations, and appeared to lack evidentiary integrity. In addition, various documents demonstrated that the deceased remained actively involved in the affairs of the Company well after the alleged 2017 transfer, including a loan agreement and planning acceptance certificate signed on behalf of the Company, as well as regular payments made by the Company to the deceased shortly before his death.
Of particular concern to the Court was the unexplained wiping and disposal of the deceased’s work laptop, a device likely containing crucial information regarding the company’s affairs. The Honourable Judge noted that this conduct deprived the widow of potentially decisive evidence, describing such conduct as indicative of a lack of candour.
In interpreting section 50 of PAIA, the Court applied the established principles set out in Cape Metropolitan Council v Metro Inspection Services and Clutchco (Pty) Ltd v Davis, confirming that a requester need only show that access to the record is “reasonably required” for the exercise or protection of rights. The widow’s rights as surviving spouse married in community of property, and as administrator of the deceased’s estate, clearly met this threshold. The Court held that she was entitled to documents that may shed light on the deceased’s shareholding and financial interests.
T-Pringle AJ accordingly ordered the Company and Company’s Director to furnish all requested documents within 20 days and granted costs on an ordinary scale against the Second Respondent.
This judgment underscores the protective function of PAIA in instances where company records are withheld in circumstances involving estate administration and disputed shareholding. It affirms that private bodies cannot rely on technicalities or incomplete records to frustrate legitimate attempts to protect proprietary rights.
Meet Amorette Gangel
Reach out to BDK. We can assist.
#BDK #BDKAttorneys #Attorneys #CivilLaw #CriminalLaw #FightingYourFight #LookingForALawyer #NeedALawyer #SouthAfricanLaw #CompanyDocuments #Estate #DeceasedEstate #PAIA #AdministrationOfEstatesAct #CompaniesAct
