Nova Property Group Holdings Ltd v Cobbett

Moneyweb (Pty) Ltd, a financial news publisher, and its journalist Julius Cobbett requested access to the securities registers of Nova Property Group Holdings Ltd, Frontier Asset Management & Investments (Pty) Ltd, and Centro Property Group (Pty) Ltd under s 26(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008, as part of investigative journalism into the Sharemax property syndication scheme. The companies refused access. Moneyweb launched a High Court application to compel compliance. Instead of answering the main application, the companies brought interlocutory discovery applications under Uniform Rule 35, seeking documents to probe Moneyweb’s alleged ‘sinister motives’ for requesting access. The High Court granted limited Rule 35(12) relief but dismissed the Rule 35(14) application, while expressing the view that s 26(2) conferred a qualified right subject to judicial discretion. The companies appealed the dismissal of their Rule 35(14) application to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The decision authoritatively clarified that s 26(2) of the Companies Act grants an unqualified right of access to company securities registers, resolving conflicting High Court authority. It strengthened transparency and accountability in corporate governance, affirmed the independence of s 26 access rights from PAIA, and provided important protection for investigative journalism and public‑interest reporting.