1
IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
CASE NO: CT02631ADJ2026
In the matter between:
MOGOMOTSI MOTHIBI Applicant
and
ABRAHAM KOSHY First Respondent
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTIES COMMISSION Second Respondent
Date of Decision: 19
th August 2026
DECISION
INTRODUCTION
1. The Applicant is MOGOMOTSI MOTHIBI (ID Number-xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
a director of INK ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD (Registration 2025/970194/07).
2. The First Respondent is ABRAHAM KOSHY (Identity Number-
xxxxxxxxxxxx) a director of INK ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD (Registration
2025/970194/07).
2
3. The Second Respondent is the Companies and Intellectual Properties
Commission resident at DTI Campus 77 Meintjies Street
4. This is an application in terms of sections 71(8)(b) of the Companies
Act No. 71 of 2008 (‘’the Act’’) for an Administrative Order determining the
removal of the Third Respondent as a director.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
5. The Applicant request that the First Respondent be removed as
director. The Applicant alleges that the First Respondent was guilty of the
following.
a. Fraudulent Misrepresentation and Dishonesty The First
Respondent knowingly misrepresented his qualifications and
professional standing by: • Failing to disclose his Matric
certificate; • Submitting a degree certificate that does not reflect
a valid identification number; and • Falsely representing himself
as a Professional Engineer registered with the Engineering
Council of South Africa (ECSA) without providing any verifiable
proof.
b. Material Non-Disclosure and Breach of Fiduciary Duty The First
Respondent deliberately withheld material information relevant
to his appointment and suitability as a director. \
3
c. Gross Misconduct – Unauthorized Interference with Company
Systems the First Respondent unlawfully and without mandate
deactivated a Company email address, thereby interfering with
Company communications, operations, and governance. This
constitutes gross misconduct, abuse of authority, and
operational sabotage.
d. Failure to Respond to Serious Allegations , The First
Respondent failed to respond to repeated correspondence and
serious allegations constitute gross insubordination, contempt
for corporate governance, and aggravation of misconduct.
e. Fraudulent Misrepresentation of B -BBEE Status . The First
Respondent falsely represented to the Company that he
qualified under Black Economic Empowerment (B -BBEE) on
the basis that he allegedly came to South Africa before 1994.
APPLICABLE LAW
6. Section 71 (removal of directors) is the applicable section of the Act.
71 of the Act provides as follows:Removal of directors
71. (1) Despite anything to the contrary in a company’s Memorandum
of Incorporation or rules, or any agreement between a company and a
director, or between any shareholders and a director, a director may
be removed by an ordinary resolution adopted at a shareholders
meeting by the persons entitled to exercise voting rights in an election
of that director, subject to subsection (2). (2) Before the shareholders
4
of a company may consider a resolution contemplated in subsection
(1)— (a) the director concerned must be given notice of the meeting
and the resolution, at least equivalent to that which a shareholder is
entitled to receive, irrespective of whether or not the director is a
shareholder of the company; and (b) thedirector must be afforded a
reasonable opportunity to make a presentation, in person or through a
representative, to the meeting, before the resolution is put to a vote.
(3) If a company has more than two directors, and a shareholder or
director has alleged that a director of the company — (a) has
become— (i) ineligible or disqualified in terms of section 69, other than
on the grounds contemplated in section 69(8)(a);or (ii) incapacitated to
the extent that the director is unable to perform the functions of a
director, and is unlikely to regain that capacity within a reasonable
time; or (b) hasneglected, or been derelict in the performance of, the
functions of director, the board, other than the director concerned,
must determine the matter by resolution, and may remove a director
whom it has determined to be ineligible or disqualified, incapacitated,
or negligent or derelict, as the case may be. (4) Before the board of a
company may consider a resolution contemplated in subsection (3),
the director concerned must be given— (a) notice of the meeting,
including a copy of the proposed resolution and a statement setting
out reasons for the resolution, with sufficient specificity to reasonably
permit the director to prepare and present a response; and (b) a
reasonable opportunity to make a presentation, in person or through a
representative, to the meeting before the resolution is put to a vote. (5)
5
If, in terms of subsection (3), the board of a company has determined
that a director is ineligible or disqualified, incapacitated, or has been
negligent or derelict, as the case may be, the director concerned, or a
person who appointed that director as contemplated in section
66(4)(a)(i), if applicable, may apply within 20 business days to a court
to review the determination of the board. (6) If, in terms of subsection
(3), the board of a company has determined that a director is not
ineligible or disqualified, incapacitated, or has not been negligent or
derelict, as the case may be— (a) any director who voted otherwise on
the resolution, or any holder of voting rights entitled to be exercised in
the election of that director, may apply to a court to review the
determination of the board; and (b) the court, on application in terms of
paragraph (a), may— (i) confirm the determination of the board; or (ii)
remove the director from office, if the court is satisfied that the director
is ineligible or disqualified, incapacitated, or has been negligent or
derelict. (7) An applicant in terms of subsection (6) must compensate
the company, and any other party, for costs incurred in relation to the
application, unless the court reverses the decision of the board. (8) If a
company has fewer than three directors — (a) subsection (3) does not
apply to the company; (b) in any circumstances contemplated in
subsection (3), any director or shareholder of the company may apply
to the Companies Tribunal, to make a determination contemplated in
that subsection; and 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55142 (c)
subsections (4), (5) and (6), each read with the changes required by
the context, apply to the determination of the matter by the Companies
6
Tribunal. (9) Nothing in this section deprives a person removed from
office as a director in terms of this section of any right that person may
have at common law or otherwise to apply to a court for damages or
other compensation for— (a) loss of office as a director; or (b) loss of
any other office as a consequence of being removed as a director.
(10) This section is in addition to the right of a person, in terms of
section 162, to apply to a court for an order declaring a director
delinquent, or placing a director on probation
EVALUATION AND FINDINGS
7. The main issue is whether the First Respondent has been negligent or
derelict in her duties as director.
8. Having considered the provisions of section 71 I am convinced that the
Respondent has acted negligently and derelict in his duties . The Applicant
alleges that the First Respondent lied about his qualifications and BEE
status. Without any response from the First Respondent, I am inclined to
accept what was stated by the Applicant . The First Respondent had
committed fraud by lying about his qualification. He also put the company in
jeopardy by lying about his BEE status.
9. The Tribunal finds that it is thus in the best interest of the company for
the First Respondent to be removed as director.
7
ORDER
10. The relief sought by The Applicant is granted.
a. The First Respondent is removed as a director of INK
ENGINEERING (PTY) LTD (Registration 2025/970194/07) in
terms of Section 71(8) of the Act.
b. The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission is
hereby ordered to deregister ABRAHAM KOSHY (Identity
Number- xxxxxxxxxxx) as a director of INK ENGINEERING
(PTY) LTD (Registration 2025/970194/07) within a period of
10 (ten) days from receipt of this order.
c. The Registrar of the Tribunal is hereby directed to deliver a
copy of this order to the Commissioner of Companies
and Intellectual Property Commission within 5 (five) days
from date of this order.
MOHAMED ALLTHE APPLICANTCHICKTAY
MEMBER OF THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL