Media24 (Pty) Ltd v Estate of the Late Deon Jean du Plessis and Another

Media24 and the late Deon du Plessis were shareholders in Daily Sun (Pty) Ltd, holding 80% and 20% respectively. Contractual arrangements provided that on du Plessis’s death, Media24 would acquire the remaining shares at a price determined by a formula and calculated by an independent expert acting as an expert, not an arbitrator. Following du Plessis’s death, the parties appointed Charles Arthur Stride, a chartered accountant, as independent expert to value the shares. Stride produced a valuation report. Media24 refused to accept the valuation, alleging that it was vitiated by a ‘manifest error’ on the basis that Stride exceeded his mandate, particularly by relying on Annexure 1 to the agreement, which Media24 contended was outdated and factually incorrect. The Western Cape High Court enforced the expert determination, finding no manifest error. Media24 appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The case reaffirms the narrow scope for judicial interference with expert determinations in South African law, particularly where parties have agreed that such determinations are final and binding absent manifest error. It underscores the distinction between expert determination and arbitration and confirms that courts will not entertain disguised appeals on the merits of an expert’s decision.