Equistock Properties 8 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Oosthuizen and Others

Equistock Properties 8 (Pty) Ltd owned two commercial properties in Groblersdal. From 2000, by an oral arrangement with the late Mr AP Coetzee (senior), Laduma Biscuits (Pty) Ltd, controlled by Willem and Karen Oosthuizen, managed the properties, collected rentals, and paid all expenses, while Equistock functioned as a holding entity. After Mr Coetzee senior’s death, his son, Hendrik Coetzee, purported to take control of Equistock by claiming sole shareholding and passing resolutions appointing himself and others as directors. Acting on those purported resolutions, Mr Coetzee caused Equistock to launch an application in the Limpopo High Court seeking a final interdict directing tenants to pay rentals directly to Equistock and prohibiting payment to the Oosthuizens or Laduma. The Oosthuizens opposed the application, disputing Mr Coetzee’s authority and asserting the long‑standing rental collection arrangement. The High Court dismissed the application and granted a personal punitive costs order against Mr Coetzee. Equistock and Mr Coetzee appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. The second appellant, Hendrik Coetzee, was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of two counsel where employed.

The judgment reaffirms strict requirements for proving authority to litigate on behalf of a company, clarifies the distinction between challenging attorney authority under Uniform Rule 7(1) and proving corporate authorisation, restates the requirements for a final interdict, and confirms that personal punitive costs orders may be made against individuals who improperly institute litigation in a company’s name.