About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
1991
>>
[1991] ZASCA 7
|
|
Howard v Herrigel NO and Another (130/89) [1991] ZASCA 7; 1991 (2) SA 660 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 113 (A) (8 March 1991)
1
CASE NO 130/89
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(
APPELLATE DIVISION
)
In the matter between:
ROBIN FRANCIS HOWARD
APPELLANT
AND
OTTO FRIEDRICH CHRISTIAN HERRIGEL, N.O.
FIRST RESPONDENT
BAREND
GERT STEYN DE WET, N.O.
SECOND RESPONDENT
CORAM
: JOUBERT, SMALBERGER, NESTADT, KUMLEBEN et GOLDSTONE JJA
DATE HEARD
: 18 February 1991
DATE DELIVERED
: 8 March 1991
JUDGMENT
GOLDSTONE, JA
:
The respondents are the liquidators of Loredo (Pty) Limited ("Loredo"). In
that capacity they brought proceedings in the Witwatersrand
Local Division
against the appellant, Robin Francis Howard ("Howard"), Ellison Dateling
("Dateling"), Coenraad Marthinus Vermaak
("Vermaak") and the Standard Bank of
South Africa Limited ("SBSA"). They sought orders against each of these parties
holding them
jointly and severally liable for the payment of all of the debts of
Loredo. The claims were made in terms of the provisions of section
424(1) of the
Companies Act 61
3 of 1973 ("the Act") and alternatively were based on the
common law delict of fraud. In the result the claims against Dateling, Vermaak
and SBSA were dismissed. The claim against Howard succeeded to the extent
reflected in the order made by Morris AJ in the Court
a quo
. The terms
thereof now relevant read as follows:
"A.1 The first respondent [Howard] is declared to be liable in terms of
Section 424(1) of the Companies Act, No 61 of 1973 for debts
incurred by Loredo
(Proprietary) Limited (the Company) to persons and in the amounts reflected in
Annexure B to the applicants' founding
affidavit as having been paid to the
Company by such persons during the period from and including 14 November 1984 to
the date of
liquidation.
2. The first respondent is to pay sixty percent of the applicants' costs.
4
E. Subject to any resolution to the contrary by creditors and subject to the
preferences set forth in the
Insolvency Act, No 24 of 1936
, any amount paid by
the first respondent, shall be apportioned
pro rata
amongst the creditors
for whose claims the particular respondent is liable."
The reference to "the particular respondent" in the last sentence should have
been a reference to "the first respondent".
With leave of the Court a
guo
, Howard appeals to this Court against the whole of the order made
against him. The respondent applied to that Court for leave to
cross-appeal in
respect of the date from which Howard was held to be liable for the debts
incurred by Loredo. They contend that it
should have been 20 September 1984,
the
5
date on which the first investment was received by Loredo.
They also applied for leave to cross-appeal against the
costs order, contending that Howard should have been ordered
to pay all of the costs of the respondents. That
application for leave to
cross-appeal was refused with
costs. The respondents thereafter applied to
the Chief
Justice for leave to cross-appeal. That application was
successful and in so far as it is now relevant it was
ordered that:
"1) Verlof is aan die applikante verleen om 'n teenappel te loods teen die
gedeelte van die uitspraak ten opsigte van eerste respondent
wat nie voorsiening
maak vir betaling van die skulde aangegaan vanaf 20 September 1984 tot 13
November 1984 nie, en teen die gedeelte
wat eerste respondent aanspreeklik stel
vir slegs 60% van die applikant se koste, na hierdie hof, op 10/05/1989.
2)
6
3) Die koste van hierdie aansoek sal koste
in die teenappel
wees behalwe dat die
applikant die koste van die 2de en 3de
respondente in
die aansoek moet betaal."
The issues on appeal are considerably narrower
than those which were argued in the Court a
quo
. In the
first place we are only concerned with the liability of
Howard. It is
conceded by Howard that the business of
Loredo was conducted fraudulently in
that investors' moneys
were misapplied by a director of Loredo, Mrs C.
Smith
("Smith") and Loredo's attorney, Mr. L. Gelb ("Gelb").
Secondly, it is not
sought on behalf of the respondents to
hold Howard liable other than under
the provisions of
section 424(1) of the Act. Consequently, the
following
broad issues were argued on appeal:
1. Whether the respondents were entitled to bring
their claim for relief against Howard by
application
proceedings and not by way of action;
7 2. Whether Howard was knowingly a party to the business of Loredo being
carried on recklessly or with intent to defraud its creditors
or for any
fraudulent purpose;
3 If Howard was knowingly a party as aforesaid, the extent of his liability
under section 424 of the Act;
4 Whether the costs order made by the Court a
quo
should be
amended.
THE FORM OF THE PROCEEDINGS
Section 424(1) of the Act reads as follows:
"(1 ) When it appears, whether it be in a winding-up, judicial management or
otherwise, that any business of the company was or is
being carried on
recklessly or with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of
any other person or for any fraudulent
purpose, the Court may, on the
application of the Master, the
8
liquidator, the judicial manager, any creditor or member or contributory of
the company, declare that any person who was knowingly
a party to the carrying
on of the business in the manner aforesaid, shall be personally responsible,
without any limitation of liability,
for all or any of the debts or other
liabilities of the company as the Court may direct."
In
Food and Nutritional Products (Pty) Ltd v Neumann
1986(3) SA 464
(W) it was held by Schabort J that this section of the Act does not restrict a
litigant to application proceedings
and that relief thereunder may properly be
sought in action proceedings. In other words, that the choice of procedure is
governed
by the ordinary rules. The correctness of that decision was not
questioned on behalf of the respondents and I shall assume that it
is correct.
The question is whether, on that assumption, the respondents were obliged to
proceed by way of action.
The correct approach in a case such as the present
9
was laid down by this Court in
Tamarillo (Pty) Ltd v B
N
Aitken (Pty) Ltd
1982(1) SA 398 (A) at 430 G - 431 A.
Miller JA said this:
"A litigant is entitled to seek relief by way of notice of motion. If he has
reason to believe that facts essential to the success
of his claim will probably
be disputed he chooses that procedural form at his peril, for the Court in the
exercise of its discretion
might decide neither to refer the matter for trial
nor to direct that oral evidence on the disputed facts be placed before it, but
to dismiss the application.
(Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions
(Pty) Ltd
1949 (3) SA 1155
(T) at 1168.) But if, notwithstanding that there
are facts in dispute on the papers before it, the Court is satisf ied that on
the
facts stated by the respondent, together with the admitted facts in the
applicant's affidavits, the applicant is entitled to relief
(whether in respect
of all his claims or one or more of them) it will make an order giving effect to
such finding, with an appropriate
order as to costs. (
Cf Stellenbosch
Farmers' Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd
1957 (4) SA 234(C)
at
235;
10
Burnkloof Caterers (Pty) Ltd v Horseshoe Caterers (Green Point) (Pty) Ltd
1976 (2) SA 930
(A) at 938.) The Court does not exercise a discretion in motion
proceedings whether or not to grant claims established by the admitted
or
undisputed facts; except perhaps in very extraordinary circumstances the
applicant has a right to an order in respect of such
established claims.
(
Room Hire
case at 1166.)"
The
learned Judge a
quo
expressly sought to follow
that approach. In the course of his judgment he said:
"I shall decide [this matter] on application with the result that if there is a
dispute on any material fact I must resolve that
fact on the basis that it
cannot be decided on affidavit and the applicants do not or did not elect to
adopt the ordinary proceedings
of
rauw actie.
In these circumstances the case against Howard must be approached on the basis
that his version of the facts is correct, and on the
basis that the applicants
do not seek an order under rule 6(5)(g) or that the matter be referred to
trial.
11
It was further submitted that the Court has no discretion in the matter but that
on the facts set out by the respondent, together
with admitted facts set out by
the applicants, the applicants must be given the relief which the law allows.
There appears to be
weighty authority in support of this proposition. I do not
propose to exercise any sort of discretion. I propose to approach the
matter on
the facts set out in the respondent's affidavit (Howard in this case) and his
evidence at the inquiry."
In testing the factual
findings of Morris AJ it is necessary to keep in mind this approach to disputed
evidence. On that basis I can
conceive of no valid cause for complaint with
regard to the respondents having approached the Court a
quo
by way of
application proceedings. If the admitted facts together with the facts stated by
Howard did not entitle the respondents
to relief then the application should
have been dismissed and this appeal should succeed. If these facts did
establish
12 liability on the part of Howard under section 424(1) of the Act,
then the respondents were entitled to relief. In that event the
other issues
referred to above will fall to be considered.
It is convenient at this point to canvass the factual background which
emerged from the affidavits and supporting documents. Having
regard to what I
have already said concerning the proper approach in these proceedings, I do so
on the basis that we must accept
as correct Howard's version.
According to
Howard, at the time of signing his affidavit on 9 November 1987, he was a 64
year old businessman. He was a director
of a number of companies in Johannesburg
in what he refers to as "The Howard Group of Companies". He had been involved in
their activities
since their inception many years before. The business of
those
13
companies was described by Howard as follows:
".... the said companies are engaged in the business of portfolio management,
and my participation therein has largely been confined
to the performance of
analyses relating to stock market and economic trends, both locally and
elsewhere and stock market research."
Howard alleges
that in January 1984 he was approached by Smith. He had not previously known
her. She informed him that she was employed
as an investment cohsultant by an
estate agent, Inter Control Plan, which,
inter alia
, was engaged in the
business of lending out moneys on behalf of clients over the short term at high
rates of interest. She also said
that she had previously been an employee of the
Trust Bank of Africa Ltd. She enquired whether Howard was prepared to invest his
own funds with her employer. She also informed him that Inter Control Plan
offered security to investors in the form of mortgage
bonds registered over both
the immovable and movable property of borrowers.
14
In response to a query raised by Howard, Smith
advised him that Inter Control Plan was not registered to do
business in the field of participation mortgage bonds but
was in the process of securing such registration. Howard
states in his answering affidavit that:
" (i) I was not particularly interested in placing any investments with
Smith; I however did advise her that it seemed to me that
the activities of the
said Inter Control Plan might constitute a violation of both the Banking Act and
the Unit Trust Act, inasmuch
as it appeared to me that it was acting as a
deposit receiving institution in respect of funds well in excess of the
limitation imposed
by law.
(ii) I wish to make it perfectly clear that I was not, and did not regard
myself as an expert insofar as the legalities relating to
the functioning of a
deposit receiving institution are concerned.
15
(iii) I had however come across the matter from time to time
in relation to my dealings on behalf of The Howard Group of Companies,
and I
raised the question pertinently with Smith as I had shortly before my meeting
with her had occasion to consult Senior Counsel
in relation to certain aspects
of the Banking Act."
Smith again approached Howard in March 1984. She was upset and informed him
that she feared that monies which she had obtained from
clients for investment
by Inter Control Plan might not have been properly secured. Howard stated that
he was:
"particularly impressed at the concern shown by Smith in relation to the welfare
of her clients; such concern was to my mind genuine,
and by reason thereof I
formed an extremely favourable impression of Smith in relation to the ethical
standards which she wished
to maintain in her dealings on behalf of her
clients."
She informed Howard that she was well
acquainted with
16
banking and accounting practice and procedures. He says that
she "created an impression of being a person of financial standing".
Howard
suggested to Smith that she consult the firm of attorneys, Gelb, Benjamin and
Kaplan in order to clarify the issues she had
raised with him. That firm
occupied offices in the same building in which The Howard Group of Companies
hired offices. He recommended
that firm because he knew that they acted on
behalf of a very large property company and therefore had "the necessary
expertise to
furnish Smith with the advice she required".
Some months later,
Smith again visited Howard. She said that she had consulted Gelb who had
satisfactorily dealt with her problems
and that her concern in regard to the
affairs of Inter Control Plan had been misplaced. She informed Howard that she
intended to
commence her own business in the field of participating mortgage
bonds and
17 for that purpose she would register a company. She invited
Howard to become a shareholder in that company. He agreed to do so.
According to
Howard, he had "no reason to suspect her integrity". In return for his
participation he required that three conditions
be met, viz:
i. that the auditors of the Howard Group of Companies, viz. S. Taitz, Kaplan
and Company were to be the auditors of the envisaged
company;
ii. Dateling, then the senior audit clerk of S. Taitz, Kaplan and Company,
was to have access to the books and records of the company
for the purpose of
preparing trial balances and the performance of certain secretarial work on its
behalf; and
iii. Gelb was to attend to the legal work of the company.
Howard further explained to Smith that he would
18
have very little time tp devote to the affairs of the
company. He would be in a position to furnish the company
with advice but would not play an active role in the day-to-
day administration and affairs of the company. He added:
"I made it plain to Smith that regard being had to the restraints on my time, I
could be no more than a non-executive director of
the company with
responsibility for furnishing advice from time to
time."
With regard to Gelb, Howard stated in his
affidavit that he was "favourably impressed by him and regarded him as a
competent, honest,
responsible and efficient attorney".
Smith agreed to the
requirements of Howard, and Gelb was "instructed to register a participation
mortgage bond company". Pending such
registration, it was agreed that moneys
would be obtained from clients for investment by way of short term loans at high
rates of
interest. More
19 particularly, it was agreed that the company would
endeavour to procure investments not to exceed a total aggregate of R500 000
to
be lent by it to suitable borrowers at high rates of interest for periods not to
exceed one year. Loans were to be secured by
the registration of first mortgage
bonds over the immovable properties of borrowers, the amount of any single loan
not to exceed
70% of the sworn valuation of the property over which such
mortgage bond was to be registered. Because of the high prime bank lending
rate
at that time and the demand for loans, explained Howard, the company would
generate sufficient income to secure the interest
due by it to its investors and
the payment of commissions to such of its agents as became entitled thereto. It
was also agreed that
the company would charge its borrowers a management fee.
The limit of R500 000 was presumably introduced in an áttempt to
take
advantage of proviso (iii) to section 1(2A)(b) of the Banks
20
Act, 23 of 1965, which provides that:
"(iii) a person (including a co-operative society) other than a person who
solicits or advertises for deposits, shall not be deemed
to be carrying on the
business of accepting deposits if he does not at any time hold deposits from
more than twenty persons or deposits
amounting in the aggregate to more than
five hundred thousand rand."
According to Howard, moneys in excess of R500 000 would be paid directly into
a banking account in the name of the customer (the lender)
and from there paid
to the selected borrower against the registration in favour of the lender of a
first mortgage bond over the borrower's
immovable property. The company would
not be privy to any contract between the lender and the borrower. These
arrangements were obviously
also designed in an attempt to avoid the provisions
of the Banks Act.
21
Howard refers in some detail to his own reputation and
financial position. He refers to the Howard Group of Companies as "one of the
leading portfolio managers operative in the Republic", managing funds well in
excess of R80 million.
Smith, alleges Howard, readily agreed to all of his
requirements and that "fortified my belief in her honest intent to deal in a
financial
market in which she was well versed".
Pursuant to those
arrangements, Loredo was registered on 26 July 1984. It had an authorised share
capital of 1000 shares of R1 each.
After the initial allotments, Howard and
Smith each owned 50 shares in the company. On the date of incorporation both
Howard and
Smith became the directors of Loredo. The auditors were S. Taitz,
Kaplan and Company and Howard was appointed as the public officer
of the
company.
22
On 1 September 1984, Howard accompanied Smith to the Stock
Exchange Branch of SBSA where he introduced her to Vermaak who was then
the
manager of that branch. Howard advised Vermaak that:
"Loredo would ultimately do business in the field of participation mortgage
bonds, but that because of the strictures governing the
securing of consent to
do so, this would take some time before taking
effect."
The banking account of Loredo was opened on
that day and Smith and Howard were the signatories thereto. In fact Howard never
signed
any chegues on behalf of the company. According to Howard his signature
"was required to cater for any situation of emergency necessitating
the need for
the cheques to be signed on behalf of Loredo in the absence of Smith".
Smith
operated the affairs of Loredo from an office in the premises hired by The
Howard Group of
23 Companies. Initially, so Smith reported to Howard, very
little business was done by Loredo.
Shortly after the commencement of
business by Loredo, Smith called at Howard's office with a Mr Boshoff. He was
introduced as a client
of Loredo. It is not in issue that Boshoff was the first
investor and he paid to Loredo the amount of R90 000. He was promised a
rate of
interest of 27% per annum. Shortly thereafter, a Mr C H Smith invested the
amount of R59 000 with Loredo.
On 28 September 1984, Vermaak, in his capacity
as manager of the Stock Exchange Branch of SBSA issued a document addressed "TO
WHOM
IT MAY CONCERN". It read thus:
"This will serve to introduce
MRS CYNTHIA SMITH Who is a Director of a Company styled Loredo (Pty) Ltd. This
latter Company conducts its account with us and we
know the directorate to be of
a very high integrity who should not commit
the
24
Company beyond its means. They have been known to us in their personal and
through their wide business activities for a number of
years."
This document contains false representations
and especially with regard to Smith. Vermaak had only met her on one occasion
about a
week before when the company opened its account. Howard denies knowledge
of the document or of its use by Smith to obtain investments.
For the purposes
of these proceedings that denial must be accepted as being truthful.
Smith
had contacts in what was then South West Africa. At about the beginning of
October 1984, she visited Windhoek in order to obtain
agents and investors for
Loredo.
During October 1984, Smith presented Howard with a number of
certificates which were to be the formal record of investments with Loredo
and
which were to be delivered to
25
the investors. These certificates were printed documents.
Under the name of Loredo they recorded that the named investor had invested
a
stated amount of money. The type of security was stated as well as the interest
payable. They also recorded that:
"Beleggings word deur geregistreerde Eiendoms-verbande/Deelnemings vergaande
(sic) beveilig."
Provision was made for a signature
on behalf of Loredo.
Smith informed Howard that, on the advice of Gelb,
the
certificates should be signed by both of the directors of
Loredo. She
requested Howard to sign the certificates in
blank in order to obviate any
delays in sending them to
investors. In answer to a query from Howard,
Smith
stated that the aggregate of the amounts reflected in
the
certificates would not exceed R500 000. Gelb
telephonically confirmed
to Howard that on his advice both directors should sign the certificates.
According to
26
Howard, on the strength of the representation that the
certificates would not reflect investments in excess of R500 000, he signed
them.
In the middle of November 1984, at the invitation of Smith, Howard
accompanied her to to Windhoek to address the agents and potential
clients of
Loredo. The meeting took place in the home of Mr Tobie van Zyl in Windhoek.
Apart from Smith, Howard and Van Zyl, there
were present Van Biljon and some
twelve salesman in the employ of an insurance company in Windhoek. Van Biljon
would appear to have
been the only potential investor present at this meeting.
The others, apart from Howard and Smith, were potential agents of the company,
who, so it was intended, would seek investments for Loredo. Howard addressed the
meeting. That address was recorded and the correctness
of the transcript
produced by the respondents was not seriously challenged.
27
In his answering affidavit, Howard confirmed
that
he addressed the meeting, and that:
"I made it plain that any investment placed with Loredo would be secured by the
registration of a first mortgage bond over immovable
property, the moneys so
invested to be retained in trust until the registration of the said bond. If
circumstances so demanded, additional
forms of security could be obtained."
Howard explains his statements as
follows:
"(i) I would point out that the representations which I made at the said meeting
were firmly rooted in what had been agreed to by
Smith, Gelb and me in relation
to the manner in which Loredo would
operate.
(ii) Its mode of operation had
frequently
been discussed in the past, and what I stated at the said meeting was fully
consonant with the mode in which it had been resolved
the affairs of Loredo
would be conducted."
28
He added that his statements to the meeting were made in
"the firm and honest belief that the affairs of Loredo would
in fact be conducted in this manner".
In the period theréafter Smith continued to
occupy the office in the same building. He saw her often
and she informed
him that business was slow. He was not
called upon to play any role in the
day-to-day
administration of the company. He says that:
"I was not called upon to sign any cheques on behalf of Loredo, and aside from
participating in short informal meetings with Smith
on a weekly basis where my
advice in general was sought, I was not required to fulfil any other role in the
conduct of its affairs."
At the beginning of
December 1984, Smith went overseas on vacation. She only returned at the end of
January 1985. During her absence,
her secretary, Mrs
29
Alexander, attended to the affairs of Loredo. She did not
consult Howard and assured him that everything was under control.'
When Smith
returned to Johannesburg at the end of January 1985, her mother took ill and
that necessitated her absence from the office
for a further month. From time to
time she came into Howard's office and remained in daily contact with Mrs
Alexander.
Howard states that in February 1985 he received a telephone call
from Mr Tobie van Zyl. He advised him that he had received complaints
from
investors of Loredo that they had not received monthly interest payments on
their investments. Howard informed Van Zyl that
he had nothing to do with the
administration of Loredo. However, he took down the names of the investors and
informed Van Zyl that
he would instruct Smith to contact him. When Howard took
up this complaint with Smith, she advised him that everything
30 was under
control and that the interest payments had already been sent to the investors in
question. Howard urged her to avoid
that "type of shoddy administration". Van
Zyl did not again contact HowardU
At the end of February 1985, Smith informed
Howard that she was moving the offices of Loredo to other premises at Commercial
Centre,
Bree Street, Johannesburg. At that time Smith also told him that she
intended lending moneys to Loredo on loan amount. He believed
that she was well
able to do so. Howard did not lend moneys to Loredo and he was not asked to do
so. At no time did he draw any moneys
from Loredo, either in the form of salary
or otherwise. As far as he was aware, Smith had also not drawn any moneys from
Loredo.
Prior to Smith moving the premises of Loredo to Commercial House,
Howard instructed Dateling, who by then was employed by the Howard
Group of
Companies, that he
31
required him to prepare a trial balance sheet of Loredo.
Towards the end of January 1985, Dateling informed Howard that he needed
the
books of Loredo in order to prepare the trial balance sheet. Smith had
previously informed Howard that the books of the company
had been written up by
a bookkeeper she had employed for that purpose. Howard instructed Dateling to
make arrangements with Mrs Alexander
to obtain the books of account. Some time
thereafter, Dateling informed Howard that he had been unable to make
arrangements to inspect
the books. Howard did not regard this as being in any
way sinister. In March 1985 Dateling informed Howard that he was still
experiencing
difficulty in obtaining the books. Dateling attributed this to the
problems which Smith was experiencing with regard to the illness
of her mother.
Dateling later informed Howard that he had eventually obtained the books, only
to discover that none of them had been
completely written up. Howard was
32
annoyed at receiving this information and instructed Dateling
to complete the writing up of the books of account. Howard so advised
Smith.
During the middle of March 1985 Dateling informed Howard that he had been unable
to locate source documents such as bank statements
and vouchers. Smith had told
him that such documentation must have gone astray. Again Howard alleges that he
"did not detect any
sense of urgency in the situation". The year-end of Loredo
was 30 June 1985 and there was then still time available for the writing
up of
the books of account for presentation to the auditors of the company.
During
the first two weeks of April, Dateling informed Howard that he had "commenced
the completion of the writing up of the said
books of account". He also advised
him that he was experiencing some difficulty in collating the moneys which had
been invested with
Loredo and those which had in turn been placed by it on loan
on behalf of
33
such investors. Dateling told Howard that the problem stemmed
from his inability to obtain the register containing details of the
bonds which
had been registered to secure such investments. The register was in the
possession of Gelb and he was unable to obtain
it from him. According to
Howard:
"I wish to make it perfectly clear that the Second Respondent (Dateling) told me
nothing which ought by any stretch of the imagination
to have aroused a
suspicion in my mind that the affairs of Loredo were not being administered in a
proper fashion."
"There was nothing in what he told me which suggested that any irregularities
had been committed, or that moneys had been or were
being
misappropriated."
Toward the end of
April 1985, Gelb informed Howard that Smith had terminated his services as the
attorney of
34
Loredo. Howard said that he was startled by that disclosure.
He said that he was also dismayed that Smith had not sought to consult
him in
regard to the matter. On the advice of Gelb he resolved to resign as a director
of Loredo. He telephoned Smith and advised
her of thát decision. Howard
said that Smith accepted his resignation with immediate effect. She also agreed
to purchase his
shares in Loredo at their par value. Howard also instructed
Dateling to request the auditors to formalise his resignation. According
to
Howard, until the date of his resignation he was unaware of any irregularities
in the conduct of the affairs of Loredo. In July
1985 Howard received a document
from the auditors of Loredo relating to his resignation as a director. He signed
it without paying
particular attention to it. It records that Howard resigned as
a director of Loredo on 1 July 1985.
That then, broadly speaking, is the version given
35 by Howard of his involvement with Loredo. There are a number of important
respects in which his version is contradicted by the
affidavits of other
deponents relied upon by the respondents. Having regard to what I have already
said concerning the proper approach
in application proceedings, the Court a
quo
was obliged to accept the version of Howard. It will serve little
púrpose to refer to the detail of the matters in dispute
or the contrary
versions which emerge from the evidence.
To complete the factual background
no more need be said than that in fact over R2,5 million was invested with
Loredo. None of the
investments was secured. Smith and Gelb fled the country
having stolen the investors' funds. The company was left devoid of any funds.
The loss amounted to R2 226 736,61.
36
As mentioned earlier, it is common cause that the business of
Loredo was conducted with intent to defraud its creditors. The theft
of the
funds of Loredo was the real and proximate cause of the losses sustained by
Loredo. There was no evidence which established
that Howard was knowingly a
party to the fraud or theft. Counsel for the respondents accepted that position.
The respondents' case,
however, is that in other respects the business of Loredo
was carried on recklessly and that Howard was knowingly a party thereto.
For
that reason, so claim the respondents, the court, in terms of section 424(1) of
the Act, was entitled to declare Howard personally
responsible for the debts of
Loredo.
At common law a director of a company who is knowingly a party to
fraud on the part of his company would be liable in damages for
any loss
suffered by any
37 person in consequence of the fraud. It would be necessary,
in order to fix the liability of such a director, to establish a causal
connection between the fraud of the company and the damages claimed from the
director. The quantum of these damages would also have
to be proved. The
provisions of section 424(1) of the Act enable the court to declare such a
director liable "for all or any of the
debts or other liabilities of the
company" without proof of a causal connection between the fraudulent conduct of
the business of
the company and the debts or liabilities for which he may be
declared liable. In
In re William C Leitch Brothers Ltd
[1932] 2 Ch 71
at
79/80, Maugham J, with reference to the similar provisions of section 275 of the
1929 English Companies Act, said:
"I am inclined to the view that s. 275 is in the nature of a punitive provision,
and that where the Court makes such a declaration
in relation
to
38
'all or any of the debts or other liabilities of the company,' it is in the
discretion of the Court to make an order without limiting
the order to the
amount of the debts of those creditors proved to have been defrauded by the acts
of the director in guestion, though
no doubt the order would in general be so
limited."
Whether so to limit the order ahd the
extent of such limitation would be matters for the court to consider in the due
and proper exercise
of the discretion conferred upon it by the section.
In the Court a
quo
, Morris AJ was clearly
aware
that for an order to be made against Howard
under section 424(1) it had to be established that he was "knowingly a party to
the carrying
on of the business in the manner aforesaid", i.e. "recklessly or
with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of
any other person
or for any fraudulent purpose". With regard to the necessary
39
element of knowledge, Morris AJ correctly observed in his
judgment that:
".... where the legislature has specifically introduced the word 'wetens' or
'knowingly' specific knowledge is to be proved, not
by the respondent/defendant
(or by the accused) but on the part of the
accuser."
The reference to an "accused" arises from
the provisions of section 424(3) which read as follows:
"(3) Without prejudice to any other criminal liability incurred, where any
business of a company is carried on recklessly or with
such intent or for such
purpose as is mentioned in subsection (1), every person who was knowingly a
party to the carrying on of the
business in the manner aforesaid, shall be
guilty of an offence."
In my opinion the word "knowingly" must be given the same
40
meaning in both subsections (1) and (3) of section 424. In
S v Parsons en h Ander
1980 (2) SA 397
(D) at 400 F, Leon J held that the
word meant "met kennis van die feite". That conclusion finds strong support from
the judgment
of Schreiner JA in
R v Thornton and Another
1960 (3) SA 600
(A). The statutory provision there relevant was section 10(1) of the Rents Act,
43 of 1950. It provided that an offence would be
committed if a lessor
"knowingly required or permitted a lessee to pay" a rent for controlled premises
exceeding that determined
by a rent board. At 611 F - 612 A, the learned Judge
of Appeal said the following:
" Although we are not here concerned with the general question of
mens
rea
in statutory offences it is useful, I think, to have regard to the
well-known statement by STEPHEN, J., in
Cundy v Le Cocq
,
13 Q.B.D. 207
at
p. 210, that
'it is necessary to look at the object
of each Act that is under consideration to see whether and how f ar knowledge is
of the essence
of the offence created'.
41
In sec 10(1) we have the word "knowingly", so that no question of
whether
knowledge is essential arises; but the question of
how far
it is essential remains. The general rule is that even where knowledge is
required it need not extend beyond the facts into the legal
consequences flowing
therefrom. So in
Twycross v Grant
, 2 CPD D 469, a civil case dealing,
inter alia
, with the meaning of "knowingly issuing" a prospectus in which
mention was omitted of certain contracts which should have been mentioned,
COCKBURN, C.J., at p. 541, said -
'Next, was the prospectus issued by the defendants 'knowingly' within the
meaning of the section? It was contended that the term
'knowingly' must be taken
to mean with a knowledge that the contracts were such as the statute required to
be referred to: consequently,
that, the jury having found that the mention of
the contracts was omitted from the prospectus from a
bona fide
belief
that such mention was unnecessary, the contracts had not been 'knowingly'
omitted. But this is to misconceive the meaning
of the term. 'Knowingly issuing'
means neither more nor less than issuing with a kndwledge of the existence of
the contracts within
the
42
section, and the intentional omission of them from the
prospectus. Ignorance or mistake of the law cannot be admitted as an excuse
for
disobeying an Act of Parliament.'
I read the last sentence in its context as providing a reason for interpreting
'knowingly' as meaning 'with knowledge of the
facts.'"
After referring to other authorities, the
conclusion of
Schreiner JA was expressed thus at 612 H:
"In my view the word 'knowingly' in sec 10(1) means only that the party
providing the premises must know of the determination and
that he is receiving
from the party who is being given use and occupation sums in excess of the
determination. It matters not what
his views are on the nature of the legal
relationship between himself and the other party or on the proper legal
description of the
sums received by him."
Having
regard to the provisions of section 424 and to its purpose, to be entitled to an
order the applicant
43 must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the
person sought to be held liable had knowledge of the facts from which the
conclusion
is properly to be drawn that the business of the company was or is
being carried on recklessly or with intent to defraud creditors
of the company
or creditors of any other person or for any frauduleht purpose. It would not be
necessary to go further and prove
that the person also had actual knowledge 'of
the legal consequences of those facts.
In order to be held liable under
section 424 (1) knowledge of the aforesaid facts is not on its own sufficient.
It is further necessary
that the person was "a party to the carrying on of the
business in the manner aforesaid". ín
Re Maidstone Buildings
Provisions Ltd
[1971] 3 All ER 363
(ChD) at 368 f - g, Pennycuick V-C said
of the corresponding provision of the 1948 English Companies Act (section
332(1)):
44
"The expression 'party to the carrying on of a business' is not, I think, a very
familiar one but, so far as I can see, the expression
'party to' must on its
natural meaning indicate no more than 'participates in', 'takes part in' or
'concurs in'. And that, it seems
to me, involves some positive steps of some
nature. I do not think it can be said that someone is party to carrying on a
business
if he takes no positive steps at all. So in order to bring a person
within the section one must show that he is taking some positive
steps in the
carrying on of the company's business in a fraudulent
manner."
It should be borne in mind that section
332(1) of the English Companies Act did not include the reckless conduct of
business and that
the person sought to be held liable in the
Maidstone
case was a company secretary. A director of a company, however, has a duty to
observe the utmost good faith towards the company,
and, in doing so, to exercise
reasonable skill and diligence. In
Fisheries Development
45
Corporation of S A Ltd v Jorgensen and Another
;
Fisheries Development Corporation of SA Ltd v AWJ Investments (Pty) Ltd and
Others
1980(4) SA 156 (W), Margo J said at 166 D-E:
"Obviously, a director exercising reasonable care would not accept information
and advice blindly. He would accept it, and he would
be entitled to rely on it,
but he would give it due consideration and exercise his own judgment in the
light thereof.
Gower
(
op cit
at 602 et
seq
) refers to the
striking contrast between the directors' heavy duties of loyalty and good faith
and their very light obligations of
skill and diligence. Nevertheless, a
director may not be indifferent or a mere dummy. Nor may he shelter behind
culpable ignorance
or failure to understand the company's
affairs."
In other words, a director has an
affirmative duty to safeguard and protect the affairs of the company.
In my
opinion, it follows that when the person sought to be held liable under section
424(1) is a
46
director, he may well be a "party" to the reckless or
fraudulent conduct of the company's business even in the absence of some
positive
steps by him in the carrying on of the company's business. His supine
attitude may, I suppose, even amount to concurrence in that
conduct. Whether
such an inference could properly be drawn will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the particular case.
In the case of Howard, Morris AJ held
that he was knowingly a party to the reckless conduct of the business of Loredo.
He did so on
the strength of the address made by Howard at the Windhoek meeting
on 24 November 1984. According to the transcript of that address,
Howard said,
inter alia
, the following:
"This is a typical certificate which we all agree is very appropriate. The
person gets this the president of the company signs there,
gives the client the
amount of the investment, the return on
47
the investment, the fact that they are either taking their interest out or
they are compounding it and having got that, it gives a
lot of what would be the
correct term, a lot of carpet, a lot of credibility. You get a thing like that
you can stick it away. Something
like a stock market certificate and its all
there. It looks good. Not only does it look good but in fact it is good because
we are
using a different technique of management of these products. Where the
client has a large amount of money which goes into a single
bond that does not
present a problem at all. What we've done - we've got an account, a special
account with Standard Bank so all
the capital interest if paid into that
particular account which the bank then controls and our auditors debit the trust
account so
at all stages we've got all the money there equal to the
capital
to be repaid plus the interest
(T)he underlying asset is the first mortgage
bond in tangible property which has been evaluated by a sworn appraiser, the
amount of
70% owing on the current price value of the property is given as a
bond. We deal with, through a very big firm of attorneys who specialise
in this
particular field. They are also Anglo American's attorneys so they
48
are pretty good and they have a sworn appraiser and they register the bond and
they vet out the client and they get as much cover
as they can so we've got
complete security."
After quoting
these words Morris AJ said:
"His statements in regard to security and the
trust account were reckless in themselves. As a fact the only first bond was in
favour of Smith. In fact there was no trust account
as Howard well knew.
If
he knew this, then he knew that the business of Loredo was being conducted
recklessly
in that there was no protection f or money received from
investors or, alternatively, his own conduct of the business was reckless
in
that he was inducing the agents or sub-agents to believe that a trust account
did exist when he knew that the statement was false."
(My
emphasis).
If, in fact
Morris AJ held that Howard
had knowledge in these respects, then, in my judgment the
learned Judge
erred. There was no evidence to
49
establish that Howard knew that the investments which had been
made were unsecured or that the only f irst bond was registered in
favour of
Smith. He stated expressly that he had no such knowledge and that he believed
the assurances to the contrary from Smith
and Gelb. Furthermore, there is no
evidence which establishes that Howard had knowledge that there was no "trust
account", whatever
that may have meant. As I have already mentioned, in his
answering affidavit, Howard referred specifically to his having said at
the
meeting that there would be the security of a first mortgage bond and that the
moneys from investors would be retained in trust.
In my opinion, there was no
basis for rejecting, in application proceedings, the averments by Howard that
these representations were
made in consequence of what had been agreed to by
Smith, Gelb and himself, and that what he stated at the meeting "was fully
consonant
with the mode in which it had been resolved the affairs of Loredo
50
would be conducted".
Then, too, there is no evidence which establishes that Howard had knowledge
that no special account or accounts had been opened at
SBSA. It is true that
only one ordinary account had been opened when he attended with Smith at
Vermaak's office on 1 September 1984.
Nothing would have prevented Smith opening
further accounts in the period between that date and the time of the Windhoek
meeting
some seven weeks later.
Objectively speaking, Loredo, acting through
its two directors, Smith and Howard, was conducting its business fraudulently in
making
what were indeed false statements at the Windhoek meeting. Smith
obviously knew that. However, on Howard's version it cannot be held
that he was
knowingly a party thereto. Furthermore, having regard to the trust which, on his
version, Howard not unreasonably placed
in Smith and Gelb, I do not believe that
it can be
51 said that his acceptance thereof and the repetition of his
understanding of the position can be said to have amounted to the reckless
conduct by him of the business of Loredo. It may well be that he was negligent
in not having taken more active and efficient steps
to confirm what he had been
told. That is a question dif f icult to answer after the event when the
knowledge of hindsight can be
misleading and give rise to unfair criticism. Even
if Howard was negligent in that respect, that would not be a sufficient basis
for making him liable in terms of section 424(1) of the Act In this context, I
would repeat that but for the machinations of both
Smith and Gelb the investors
would not have been defrauded. On his version, Howard had no reason to think
that
both
of those persons, one of them an attorney, would have conspired
with one another to commit fraud.
52
Morris AJ also referred to "a further factor which may be
mentioned". That consisted of two passages from the evidence which Howard
gave
at an enguiry held under the provisions of section 415 of the Act. They read as
follows:
"She (Smith) appreciated, she said that for the first couple of years the
company would be running in the red. You cannot start a
company like this and
from day one get into top gear and generate profits.
That is very interesting. So from the beginning you were proceeding with this
business on the basis that for the first few years
the
company would run in the red? Would either
break even or go into the red, bearing in mind
that the participating bond
company
You said before you qualified it now, that she specifically told you that for
the first couple of years the company will be running
in the
red? Well, probably - break even, run in
the red. It would not have a big profit."
53
"Alright, so this one or two years, did she tell
you that this company would run in the red for the
first few years? Well, she said that you
cannot expect - she emphasised that you could not expect a profit.
Whatever the reason, whether it is a good reason or a bad reason, did she tell
you that you must expect that the company will run
in the red
for the first few years? Yes, you could
expect no great profit, it would possibly run in the
red."
The learned Judge a
quo
made no express
finding on the strength of those passages. If the suggestion is that Howard had
knowledge that Loredo was carrying
on business in insolvent circumstances, I am
of the opinion that such a conclusion is unjustified. The fact that the company
would
not make a profit in no way has as a corollary that it would have been be
insolvent. That would depend upon the manner in which it
had been
capitalised.
54
With regard to the question of Howard's knowledge, Morris AJ
said the following:
"Only one thing has to be added on the question of liability and that is
Howard's statement in his affidavit (vol. 12 p. 1631) in
the paragraph
designated "(b)":
'I at all times assumed that moneys were being funnelled through the trust
account which was in fact used for Loredo, being that
of
Gelb.'
I cannot believe that Howard had forgotten what he said to investors, through
the agents, at the meeting of November 1984. He must
have realised that there
was something wrong in the way affairs were being managed. Despite what he had
said in regard to remonstrating,
and despite the fact that he alleges that at
least on one occasion he did remonstrate with Smith, he raised no query in
regard to
this rather strange method of dealing with the company's funds. This
is a factor which, to some degree, supports the proposition
that he was
knowingly a party to the manner in which the business was being
conducted."
55
That conclusion is not justified if one has regard to Howard's
version that:
"I have no knowledge as to whether or not a trust account was ever opened by
Smith. I was at all times given to understand by Smith
and Gelb that a trust
account operated by Gelb was used in which to deposit investments of clients of
Loredo. I believe that this
was quite adequate for the said purpose." Again
there is no basis upon which, in application
proceedings, those averments can be rejected as untruthful.
The evidence
referred to by Morris AJ does not justify the
conclusion that Howard was
knowingly a party to the manner
in which the business of Loredo was being
conducted by Smith
and Gelb.
In argument in this Court, counsel for the
respondents, in support of the order made by the Court a
quo
,
relied upon two additional grounds, viz:
56
1 . That the signature of the certificates in blank by Howard constituted the
reckless conduct of the business of Loredo; and
2. There were "warning lights flashing" which should have alerted Howard and his
omission to take any active steps made him a party
to the reckless conduct of
the business of
Loredo.
At the time
Howard signed them, the certificates
in fact contained no false statements. He understood from
Smith and Gelb
that the investors' funds would be secured by
the registration of first
mortgage bonds. He trusted Smith,
and Gelb confirmed that he should sign the
certificates in
blank. Again, his doing so may have amounted to
negligence
in the performance of his duties as a director of Loredo.
In my opinion, it did not make him knowingly a party to the
fraudulent
conduct of its business and did not amount to the
reckless conduct by him of
the business of Loredo.
57
Turning to the second additional ground, it is correct that to
a degree Howard did participate in the business of Loredo. He was a
party to its
incorporation. He was its public officer. He introduced Smith to Vermaak and
SBSA. He assisted in the opening of the
bank account of Loredo. He was
instrumental in appointing the auditor and attorney of the company. On 19
October 1984 he met with
Van Zyl who was one of the customers of Loredo. On one
occasion he authorised the bank to pay an amount of R50 000. He addressed
the
Windhoek meeting. He signed the certificates. In January 1985 he met with
another customer, Casper Gerhardus Boshoff. In February
1985, Van Zyl complained
to Howard about non-payment of interest and he took this up with Smith. Also at
about that time he instructed
Dateling to prepare a trial balance sheet. For
some months during 1984, Smith operated from an office in the suite occupied by
Howard's
other companies and she
58
reported to him "the whole time".
All of those activities
and others - submitted counsel for the respondents - ran counter to Howard's
assertion that he was a "non-executive
director" of Loredo. In my opinion it is
unhelpful and even misleading to classify company directors as "executive" or
"non-executive"
for purposes of ascertaining their duties to the company or when
any specific or affirmative action is required of them. No such
distinction is
to be found in any statute. At common law, once a person accepts an appointment
as a director, he becomes a fiduciary
in relation to the company and is obliged
to display the utmost good faith towards the company and in his dealings on its
behalf.
That is the general rule and its application to any particular incumbent
of the office of director must necessarily depend on the
facts and circumstances
of each case. One of the circumstances may be whether he is
59 engaged
full-time in the affairs of the company: see the
Fisheries Development
case,
supra
, at 165 G - 166 B. However it is not helpful to say of a
particular director that because he was not an "executive director" his
duties
were less onerous than they would have been if was an executive director.
Whether the inquiry be one in relation to negligence,
reckless conduct or fraud,
the legal rules are the same for all directors. In the application of those
rules to the facts one must
obviously take into account, for example, the
factors referred to in the judgment of Margo J in the
Fisheries
Development
case and any others which may be relevant in judging the conduct
of the director. His access to the particular information and the
justification
for relying upon the reports he receives from others, for example, might be
relevant factors to take into account,
whether or not the person is to be
classified as an "executive" or "non-executive" director.
60
In the present case, on the version of Howard, I cannot find
that he acted recklessly in trusting Smith and Gelb. Having regard to
the degree
in which he did participate in the activities of Loredo, Howard clearly had a
duty to the company to check on its financial
affairs and in particular the
manner in which the moneys of investors were being handled. That duty he had
from the inception. It
may be that initially he was entitled to rely on the
reports he received from Smith and Gelb. However, when he heard from Dateling
about the books of the company not having been written up and the difficulty in
locating the list of securities it could be said
that he ought to have taken
further steps to ascertain the facts and that his his failure to do so was
negligent. When later he heard
of Van Zyl's complaint about non-payment of
interest again it could be said that he should have done more than accept
Smith's assurances.
That, too, may well have
61
constituted negligence on his part.
Thus, to sum up, one is bound to accept Howard's denial of knowledge of the
malfeasance of Smith and Gelb: on this basis it cannot
be said that Howard was
knowingly a party to any fraudulent conduct of Loredo's business. Moreover, any
respect in which Howard might
have been negligent fell short of recklessness.
Thus, he cannot be declared liable under section 424(1) of the Act.
In the
result, in my opinion, the order made by the Court a
quo
must be set
aside. It may well be that had the evidence of Howard been tested by a trial
court either in an action or by reason of
a reference for the hearing of oral
evidence, the result may have been dif ferent. The respondents, having elected
to proceed by
way of application and to have the matter determined on the
affidavits, ran the risk of being non-suited by obliging the Court, as
it were,
to accept at face value the version of Howard.
62
The following order is made.
1. The appeal is upheld with
costs.
2. The order made against the appellant in the
Court a
quo
is set
aside and.the following
order is substituted
therefor:
"The application against the
first respondent is dismissed with costs".
3. The cross-appeal is dismissed with costs.
R J
GOLDSTONE JUDGE OF APPEAL
JOUBERT JA) SMALBERGER JA) CONCUR NESTADT JA) KUMLEBEN JA)