Pretorius Davies Inc. Attorneys

Pretorius Davies Inc. Attorneys Pretorius Davies Inc. attorneys is a boutique law firm specialising in the Labour, Commercial & Civi

SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENTS MAKING PROVISION FOR THE DEATH OF A SHAREHOLDER; PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE SO-CALLED “BUY-AND-...
26/11/2025

SHAREHOLDERS’ AGREEMENTS MAKING PROVISION FOR THE DEATH OF A SHAREHOLDER; PARTICULARLY REGARDING THE SO-CALLED “BUY-AND-SELL AGREEMENT”

Shareholders’ agreements are contracts that regulate the relationship between shareholders of a company. There are several reasons why shareholders’ agreements are desirable. They include, but are not limited to, prescribing what will happen if certain events come to pass. For example, there could be provisions dealing with the scenario where one shareholder wants to sell their shares or what will happen to the shares of a shareholder who dies or becomes disabled. If there is no shareholders’ agreement, the results flowing from such events could be problematic. This article focuses on a particular term to consider including in a shareholders’ agreement: the so-called “buy-and-sell agreement”.

To illustrate this, an example is apposite. Peter and Jane each hold 50% of the issued shares in a company. Peter and Jane did not conclude a shareholders’ agreement. Peter passes away unexpectedly. In terms of South African law, Peter’s shares fall into his deceased estate. In summary, this means that Peter’s shares must be distributed to his heirs according to the law of succession. If Peter left a will, then his shares will be transferred to whomever he elected in his will. If he did not leave a will, then the shares will be transferred to his beneficiaries in terms of intestate law. For the purposes of the example, let us assume that Peter did have a will and that he bequeathed his shares to his son, James. James has no experience in the business operations of the company, yet now Jane is forced to work with James as a co-owner of the company.

One can think of many scenarios where it would be detrimental to the surviving shareholders to have a third party unexpectedly forced upon them as the new shareholder. It is not sufficient to try and require a shareholder to bequeath his estate in a particular manner. Using the above example, even if Peter initially tells Jane that he will make her the beneficiary of his shares should he pass away, nothing stops Peter from changing his will later on. The better option would be for Peter and Jane to enter into a shareholders’ agreement that caters for what will happen should one of them pass away.

One way of doing this is to specify in the shareholders’ agreement that in the event of one of the shareholders passing away, then the surviving shareholders will obtain the right and obligation to purchase the shares of the one who dies. This will, accordingly, ensure that the surviving shareholders will be entitled to buy the shares of the deceased, thus avoiding the issues described above. If structured correctly, it will also ensure that the deceased shareholder’s estate will receive adequate compensation for those shares, and it may potentially even speed up the administration of the deceased estate. There are, however, other matters to consider when including such a clause. One obvious example is how the purchase price will be determined.

In many instances, the surviving shareholders may not have the cash on hand to pay for the shares should another shareholder pass away. Accordingly, an option to consider is for insurance to be taken out on the life of each shareholder to provide for this eventuality. This will ensure that the survivors have the financial capacity to purchase the shares in the event of the death of another shareholder.

Another aspect to bear in mind in this regard relates to estate duty. Section 3(3)(a)(iA) of the Estate Duty Act 45 of 1955 will need to be complied with if one wants to ensure that the policy proceeds are not deemed property in the deceased estate for purposes of estate duty.



There are many other aspects that should be considered when entering into a shareholders’ agreement. Care should therefore be taken to ensure that these agreements are properly considered and drafted according to the needs of the parties.

If you have any queries regarding this issue or its implications please feel free to contact us on [email protected] so that we can assist you!

Disclaimer: the information contained in this article is made available for general purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. It is also subject to change depending on, amongst other things, legal developments. Accordingly, we do not accept responsibility for any loss or damage (whether direct, consequential or otherwise) which may arise from reliance on the information.

NEWSFLASH!THE INTRODUCTION OF MANDATORY MEDIATION IN THE GAUTENG DIVISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTSThe Bill of Rights containe...
04/08/2025

NEWSFLASH!

THE INTRODUCTION OF MANDATORY MEDIATION IN THE GAUTENG DIVISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS

The Bill of Rights contained in the South African Constitution states:

Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum.

When one considers the predicament that litigants and judges face the realities are that our Court systems are overloaded and under resourced, specifically in terms of the number of Judges available.

The situation has been well publicised in the media however a good article from Ground Up can be accessed here: https://groundup.org.za/article/hundreds-of-court-judgments-are-late/

Over the years there have been various initiatives to attempt to support the system, such as the appointment of Acting Judges including pro bono Acting Judges who assist for a limited period of time without receiving payment for their services. The Gauteng High Courts were also the first courts to implement the digital system CaseLines and later Court Online which works in conjunction with CaseLines.

Unfortunately, the reality is that these initiatives help but did not solve the problem. Probably the most obvious delay is in relation to the civil trial dates which were being allocated to parties with dates 7 years in the future. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is definitely applicable if a party needs to wait 7 years for a trial date.

Vast numbers of additional Judges are still required but without approval for additional appointments something urgently had to be done to address the situation. The Judge President of the Gauteng High Courts and various stakeholders initiated a process with the hope of addressing the situation. This process resulted in the Judge President issuing a Directive making mediation mandatory in civil trial matters which became effective from 22 April 2025.

The Directive does a number of things:

It embraces the process of alternative dispute resolution which enables parties to resolve their dispute through settlement rather than adjudication by a Judge;
It makes mediation a mandatory process if a party wants to obtain a trial date, requiring the presentation of a mediator’s report as evidence of the attempts made to resolve the matter;
It provides that all civil trial dates up to a certain date can be retained if a mediator’s report is provided timeously with other dates after a set date being cancelled in totality with the parties being required to go through the process of mediation prior to obtaining a new trial date.
The Directive has received a mixed response, which includes a court challenge, however if one considers the statistic reflected in paragraph 5 of the Directive that up to 85% of the civil trial matters settle on the day of the trial one can only imagine how much faster the roll would be if serious settlement attempts were made upfront rather than years later on the day of trial after adding to the backlog and delays of the trial roll. The overall benefit to parties who would be able to get much faster trial dates would be immeasurable.

Alternative dispute resolution definitely has shown that it can be highly successful and can resolve a large portion of disputes thereby ultimately saving parties time and money and bringing them finality much faster than if their disputes have to be adjudicated. The CCMA is a forum which demonstrates the successes of mandatory alternative dispute resolution and reports that 70% or more of the disputes referred to it being settled (https://www.ccma.org.za/about-us/)

For more information or to download the Directive and associated documents click here: https://pretoriusdavies.co.za/2025/08/04/mandatory-mediation-in-the-high-courts/

NEW HOPE FOR THE LABOUR COURT: INTRODUCTION OF THE COURT ONLINE SYSTEMIn recent years, the Office of the Chief Justice h...
11/07/2025

NEW HOPE FOR THE LABOUR COURT: INTRODUCTION OF THE COURT ONLINE SYSTEM

In recent years, the Office of the Chief Justice has made significant strides in digitizing the judicial system. One of the major advancements is the implementation of the Caselines and Court Online systems. These systems were designed to allow legal practitioners and litigants to file documents electronically, a process known as e-filing, thereby reducing reliance on paper-based systems and modernizing the court process.

Initially rolled out in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, the Court Online system has been met with success. This digital platform has made filing documents more efficient, accessible, and sustainable.

On 28 March 2025, two significant directives were issued: Directive 01 of 2025 concerning the implementation of the Court Online electronic platform in the Labour Court, and Directive 01 of 2025 concerning its implementation in the Labour Appeal Court.



What You Need to Know About Directive 01 of 2025

With the release of Directive 01 of 2025, the Court Online electronic platform is no longer optional, it’s the new standard. From now on, all applications must be filed electronically in accordance with Rule 7 of the Labour Court Rules.

So, what does this mean in practice? It starts with uploading the initiating documents onto the system whereafter they are allocated a case number. The issued documents are then served on the Respondents/Defendants as the case may be.

Legal representatives are now responsible for bringing everyone on board, all parties involved, and the relevant court officials must be invited to the digital case file. In review matters, arbitration records must be submitted via a cloud-based service and uploaded onto the portal.

Urgent matters also need to go through Court Online. The matter should be clearly marked as “urgent” and get a provisional enrolment date from the Registrar before filing.

For matters proceeding at a standard pace, once the case is ready for hearing, practitioners must submit a notice of request for an enrolment date via the platform and notify the Registrar by email.

When the matter is ready for trial, the practitioner must submit a certificate of trial readiness confirming that everything is procedurally in order i.e. no pending interlocutory applications and all documents uploaded correctly. Without this, no trial date can be issued.

Importantly, return dates must be confirmed on Caselines. If a provisional enrolment isn’t finalised in time, the return date is lost. Only the processes laid out in the Directive can revive it.

Once all the steps have been complied with, a formal request for enrolment must be uploaded and aligned with the Registrar’s Provisional Roll. It is imperative at this stage to remember to invite the set-down office to the case.

Then there’s Caselines, the system linked to Court Online which is utilised at the presentation stage of the case. The system enables all parties as well as court staff and Judges to access the same documents, with system generated pagination, as well as various other built in features.

Finally, outcomes including orders, judgments, and post-hearing details will be available under “My Case Documents” on the platform.

Once your matter is concluded, the taxation process opens up. Bills of Costs and Notices of Intention to Tax must be uploaded, ensuring full digital compliance from start to finish.



Labour Appeal Court: Highlights of Directive 01 of 2025

The Labour Appeal Court is adopting the same digital-first approach as the Labour Court. In line with the Labour Appeal Court Rules, all petitions and appeals are now required to be submitted solely through the Court Online system.

Supporting documents — including notices, appeal records, proof of service, heads of argument, and practice notes — must be uploaded promptly and properly served on all relevant parties, in strict compliance with the prescribed procedures.



Conclusion:

These directives signal the beginning of a new era of digital litigation in both the Labour Court and Labour Appeal Court. Although the underlying legal rules remain unchanged, the shift toward electronic processes means that all legal practitioners must now become well-acquainted with the Court Online Portal and the Caselines system.

Full compliance is mandatory. Failure to adhere to the specified procedures may lead to a matter being struck from the roll or, in more serious instances, punitive cost orders.

The systems enable parties to track as well as action steps in their matters remotely without the need to attend at the Court, find physical files and then make requests in person. In addition, there are digital records for each action that is taken on the system so it is expected that there will be significantly more accuracy as well as an avoidance of the obvious difficulties of paper based litigation where on occasion documents are lost.

It is envisaged that the systems should streamline the litigation process and make matters easier to manage for both legal representatives as well as court staff.

The directives are accessible through these links:

https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/Directives/Directives_2025/Labour%20Court%20Directive%201%20of%202025%20-%2028%20March%202025%20.pdf

https://www.judiciary.org.za/images/Directives/Directives_2025/LAC%20Directive%201%20of%202025%20-%2014%20April%202025.pdf

Article written by Cammy Marais

Does suffering from a mental health condition like depression excuse misconduct by an employee?The Labour Appeal Court r...
05/10/2020

Does suffering from a mental health condition like depression excuse misconduct by an employee?
The Labour Appeal Court recently considered whether or not an employee who dismissed for misconduct but suffered from depression was automatically unfairly dismissed based on his depression or not.
A full copy of the judgement and a complete article is available on our website at https://pretoriusdavies.co.za/2020/10/05/depression-misconduct-and-ill-health/

A draft Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Violence and Harassment has been published!The draft ...
26/08/2020

A draft Code of Good Practice on the Prevention and Elimination of Violence and Harassment has been published!

The draft Code of Good Practice specifically deals with aspects such as policies, procedures, training, awareness, prevention, and management of situations where harassment (including bullying) or violence occurs.

A free copy of the draft Code of Good Practice can be downloaded from our website:
https://pretoriusdavies.co.za/2020/08/26/violence-and-harassment-at-work-in-the-spotlight/

We received this lovely surprise gift from a happy client after she won her labour court case with costs! Roses are alwa...
25/08/2020

We received this lovely surprise gift from a happy client after she won her labour court case with costs! Roses are always so beautiful! 😃

Address

33 Sovereign Drive, Route 21 Corporate Park
Centurion
0157

Opening Hours

Monday 08:30 - 16:00
Tuesday 08:30 - 16:00
Wednesday 08:30 - 04:00
Thursday 08:30 - 04:00
Friday 08:30 - 16:00

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Pretorius Davies Inc. Attorneys posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Pretorius Davies Inc. Attorneys:

Share