{"issue_text":"Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right warranting interim interdictory relief","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant's 41% shareholding, right to appoint/remove directors under Articles, purported removal in April 2016"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the requirements for interim interdict have been satisfied","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Clear right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, no alternative remedy"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court can amend the draft order to suspend resolutions passed at the EGM","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"EGM held during proceedings, need to prevent share dilution"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a 41% shareholder in the first respondent, sought to remove its appointed directors (2nd and 3rd respondents) from the board in April 2016. The respondents refused to accept the removal and continued acting as directors. The 2nd respondent called an EGM for 25 January 2017 (later postponed to 15 February 2017) to approve a debt conversion agreement that would dilute the applicant's shareholding from 41% to 0.41%.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases