Clutchco (Pty) Ltd is a small private family business company. Seventy percent of shares are held by the Davis Family Trust controlled by Frederick Davis-Armitage (the sole director), and the respondent Andrew Davis holds 30% of shares, which he purchased from his father for R100,000 in 1999. Andrew was made director and workshop manager. After a family dispute, Andrew was removed as director and workshop manager but retained his 30% shareholding. Negotiations for the acquisition of his shares failed. Andrew requested access to the company's books of first accounting entry (cash books, ledgers, journals and invoice books from March 1999 to January 2003), which was denied. He then made a formal request in January 2003 under s 53(1) of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 (PAIA) for these records. The company refused on the basis that the information was no longer relevant as the other shareholder was not interested in purchasing the shares.
The appeal succeeded with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order granted by the Cape High Court was set aside and replaced by an order dismissing the application with costs.
To obtain access to records of a private body under s 32(1)(b) of the Constitution and s 50(1)(a) of PAIA, an applicant must show that the record is 'required for the exercise or protection of any right'. 'Required' means 'reasonably required in the circumstances' and connotes a substantial advantage or an element of need - it must be more than merely useful or relevant. An applicant must lay a proper foundation by stating: (1) what the right is that he wishes to exercise or protect; (2) what the information is which is required; and (3) how that information would assist him in exercising or protecting that right. In the context of shareholders seeking access to company accounting records, the comprehensive protective machinery established by the Companies Act (including directors' duties regarding accounting records and financial statements, and independent auditors' reports) is not lightly to be disregarded. A shareholder must establish more than a whiff of impropriety or relatively minor errors or irregularities - a far more substantial foundation is required.
The Court noted that s 32(1)(b) of the Constitution and Part 3 of PAIA represent 'a step unmatched in human rights jurisprudence' by extending the fundamental right of access to information to records held by private bodies. However, the Court declined to express views on the full meaning of 'any rights' in s 32(1)(b) and s 50(1)(a) without the benefit of opposing argument. The Court assumed, without deciding, that a shareholder's right to value his shareholding to fix an appropriate selling price falls within the compass of Part 3 of PAIA. The Court also noted that there may arguably be special instances where a court could order some form of access under s 252 of the Companies Act (member's remedy in case of oppressive or unfairly prejudicial conduct), though that section was not applicable in the present case.
This case is significant in South African jurisprudence as it is one of the first Supreme Court of Appeal cases to interpret s 32 of the Constitution and Part 3 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000 in the context of access to private bodies' records. The judgment provides important guidance on the threshold required for obtaining access to information from private companies, particularly the meaning of 'required for the exercise or protection of any rights'. It establishes that this right is not untrammelled and that applicants must lay a proper foundation showing more than mere usefulness or relevance. The case also clarifies the relationship between PAIA and the Companies Act, emphasizing that the comprehensive protective machinery in the Companies Act for shareholders (including duties of directors and auditors) must be considered when assessing whether access to company records under PAIA is justified. The Court recognized the novelty and fundamental importance of the issues raised concerning access to information from private bodies under the Constitution.
Explore 1 related case • Click to navigate