Jaintilal Parbhoo and Others v Arnold Getz NO and Another

The applicants were former directors of Plymouth International (Pty) Ltd, which was wound up in October 1996. As part of the winding-up, the liquidator convened meetings of creditors and intended to interrogate the applicants under sections 414 and 415 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973. Those provisions compelled directors to answer questions even if the answers were self-incriminating, and section 415(5) allowed such evidence to be admissible in subsequent proceedings. The applicants faced a real risk that compelled answers would be used against them in criminal prosecutions relating to alleged fraud in overstating the company’s debtors. They approached the Witwatersrand Local High Court, which declared parts of section 415 unconstitutional. That declaration required confirmation by the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s order declaring section 415(3) read with section 415(5) of the Companies Act invalid to the extent that compelled answers may be used against the person in criminal proceedings, except for prosecutions relating to perjury, false statements, or failure to answer lawful questions.

The case reaffirmed and extended the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence on the privilege against self-incrimination in the context of company liquidation enquiries. It confirmed that statutory provisions compelling testimony cannot override fair trial rights by allowing such testimony to be used in criminal prosecutions. The decision strengthened constitutional protections for witnesses and directors subjected to compulsory interrogations.