This judgment is important because it affirms that the statutory list in s162(2) is not exhaustive. While standing is not granted to creditors by default, the court’s application of s157(1)(d) introduces a mechanism by which creditors, acting beyond mere debt recovery, may seek corporate accountability in appropriate cases.

​

The reasoning reflects a purposive reading of the Act: one that recognises that a company’s governance failures may have ripple effects far beyond shareholders, and that creditor activism may serve to uphold standards of fiduciary responsibility where directors fall short.

​

Director removal and procedural fairness: The Langeni decision
In Langeni, the applicants (two directors of a non-profit company) challenged their removal by the board. The removal was ostensibly grounded on allegations of misconduct, but the applicants contended that the decision was procedurally and substantively flawed. The court agreed.

S71(1) of the Act provides that a company’s board may remove a fellow director by resolution, but only on certain, more serious grounds, and where the director has been given notice and a fair opportunity to respond to allegations. In this case, the respondents failed to produce any evidence supporting the allegations, nor did they demonstrate compliance with the procedural framework set out in s71(2) and (5).

​

The judgment emphasises that removal of directors, regardless of the company’s internal politics, must conform to both the substantive and procedural safeguards prescribed by the Act. And in exercising its powers under s71, a board must still comply with the usual duties to act in the best interests of the company and for a proper purpose. The court held that the absence of meaningful evidence of misconduct, coupled with the board’s failure to follow due process, rendered the removal invalid.

​

Notably, the court took a practical view on technical procedural defects under s71(5), which requires that the affected director approach the court within 20 business days to have a decision of removal by a board reviewed. Although this requirement was not met, the court held that in the exercise of its discretion, it is not in the interest of justice not to entertain the merits of the application simply because a filing was out of time. The court further held that the litigation that the applicants pursued had been initiated prior to the removal.

​

Common themes: Enforcement access and procedural integrity
While Vantage and Langeni address distinct sections of the Act, their underlying principles are remarkably complementary. Both judgments reinforce that directors’ power must be exercised within a well-defined legal framework, and that the Act does not tolerate either reckless governance or procedurally deficient discipline.

​

In Vantage, the court broadened access to enforcement mechanisms, allowing creditors to pursue remedies that, until now, were thought to be the preserve of company insiders. This suggests that the courts may be moving toward a model of corporate governance that is more inclusive and stakeholder-responsive, particularly in the context of public interest litigation.

​

In Langeni, the court reaffirmed the procedural rigor required in board decision-making, particularly where the removal of a director is concerned. Boards must comply strictly with the procedural roadmap set out in s 71 and cannot circumvent those protections, even where removal is practically expedient.

​

Together, these cases demonstrate the court’s willingness to apply the Act purposively. Whether in interpreting standing provisions or procedural mandates, the judiciary is increasingly focused on fairness, substance, and the protection of institutional integrity.

​

Implications for corporate practice
For company boards, these judgments offer a cautionary tale. Directors may not be removed simply by internal consensus or informal decisions; the prescribed process must be followed in full. Failure to do so not only risks judicial reversal, but can damage the company’s credibility, especially in nonprofit or public-facing entities.

For creditors and external stakeholders, Vantage creates a limited but meaningful opening to seek remedies where director misconduct is serious and affects the public interest. Courts will not entertain applications brought purely to recover debt, but they will respond to allegations of governance failure that threaten the broader interests of the company and its stakeholders.

​

Critically, these cases challenge companies to recalibrate their internal governance. Legal advisors should ensure that procedures are not merely codified but actually observed, and that any contemplated removal of a director is undertaken with a strong evidentiary basis and adherence to fair process.

​

In conclusion, Vantage and Langeni reflect a maturing jurisprudence that affirms both the rule of law and the evolving expectations of modern corporate governance. Courts are increasingly prepared to hold directors accountable, not just for what they do, but for how they do it. Stakeholders, whether inside or outside the company, are not powerless, and the judiciary has signalled a willingness to engage constructively with those who seek to uphold the integrity of directorial office.

​

As South African company law continues to evolve, these decisions serve as critical markers in the ongoing conversation about governance, transparency, and the rightful exercise of corporate power. 

​

At the time of drafting the aforementioned, Ramalu was an Associate; Chetty is a Candidate Legal Practitioner.  

Supervised by Nada Lourens, a Director in the Corporate Department |  DLA Piper Advisory Services