The final report followed an investigation and a preliminary report by the Public Protector into a complaint about the alleged failure by government in to implement the recommendation of a covert UK based asset recovery agency, CIEX, suggesting that the government recover monies paid by the Reserve Bank to Bankorp, a private commercial bank. The funds were provided to Bankorp between and by the Reserve Bank acting as a lender of last resort. Chapter 9 of the Constitution establishes various independent and impartial state institutions with the aim of strengthening constitutional democracy in the Republic. One of them is the Public Protector, who is constitutionally mandated to protect the public from any conduct in state affairs or in any sphere of government that could result in any impropriety or prejudice.
An act of the company must not be beyond the objects clause, otherwise it will be ultra vires and, therefore, void and cannot be ratified even if all the members wish to ratify it. This is called the doctrine of ultra vires, which has been firmly established in the case of Ashtray Railway Carriage and Iron Company Ltd v.
Thus the expression ultra vires means an act beyond the powers. Here the expression ultra vires is used to indicate an act of the company which is beyond the powers conferred on the company by the objects clause of its memorandum.
An ultra vires act is void and cannot be ratified even if all the directors wish to ratify it. Sometimes the expression ultra vires is used to describe the situation when the directors of a company have exceeded the powers delegated to them. Where a company exceeds its Doctrine of ultra vires in public as conferred on it by the objects clause of its memorandum, it is not bound by it because it lacks legal capacity to incur responsibility for the action, but when the directors of a company have exceeded the powers delegated to them.
This use must be avoided for it is apt to cause confusion between two entirely distinct legal principles. Basic principles included the following: An ultra vires transaction cannot be ratified by all the shareholders, even if they wish it to be ratified. The doctrine of estoppel usually precluded reliance on the defense of ultra vires where the transaction was fully performed by one party A fortiori, a transaction which was fully performed by both parties could not be attacked.
If the contract was fully executory, the defense of ultra vires might be raised by either party. If the contract was partially performed, and the performance was held to be insufficient to bring the doctrine of estoppel into play, a suit for quasi contract for recovery of benefits conferred was available.
If an agent of the corporation committed a tort within the scope of his or her employment, the corporation could not defend on the ground the act was ultra vires. The objects of this company, as stated in the Memorandum of Association, were to supply and sell the materials required to construct railways, but not to undertake their construction.
The contract here was to construct a railway. That was contrary to the memorandum of association; what was done by the directors in entering into that contract was therefore in direct contravention of the provisions of the Company Act, It was held that this contract, being of a nature not included in the Memorandum of Association, was ultra vires not only of the directors but of the whole company, so that even the subsequent assent of the whole body of shareholders would have no power to ratify it.
The shareholders might have passed a resolution sanctioning the release, or altering the terms in the articles of association upon which releases might be granted. If they had sanctioned what had been done without the formality of a resolution, that would have been perfectly sufficient.
Thus, the contract entered into by the company was not a voidable contract merely, but being in violation of the prohibition contained in the Companies Actwas absolutely void. It is exactly in the same condition as if no contract at all had been made, and therefore a ratification of it is not possible.
If there had been an actual ratification, it could not have given life to a contract which had no existence in itself; but at the utmost it would have amounted to a sanction by the shareholders to the act of the directors, which, if given before the contract was entered into, would not have made it valid, as it does not relate to an object within the scope of the memorandum of association.
Later on, in the case of Attorney General v. Great Eastern Railway Co.In Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker, National Assembly and Others (3) SA (CC) para 76 the Constitutional Court held that the remedial action of the Public Protector is binding and cannot be ignored.
It must be complied with or acted upon unless it is set aside by an order of court. of doctrine of ultra vires is explained and has been brought in to understand how the doctrine of ultra vires effects the change made to corporation law from 1 July In the first part the definition and historic background vein and in second part what progress has happened after 1 July has discussed.
of doctrine of ultra vires is explained and has been brought in to understand how the doctrine of ultra vires effects the change made to corporation law from 1 July In the first part the definition and historic background vein and in second part what progress has happened after 1 July has discussed.
“Since then, Catalonia has taken a series of steps, including its declaration of sovereignty of an (sic) informal public consultation on possible independence of , the regional elections of billed as a virtual referendum on independence, and now the recent referendum”.
Mar 15, · Does the ultra vires doctrine prevent courts from replacing Wednesbury review with proportionality? Sir Philip Sales has an interesting piece in the latest edition of the Law Quarterly Review.
Riche5 but held that the doctrine of ultra vires “ought to be reasonable, and not unreasonable understood and applied and whatever may fairly be regarded as incidental to, or consequential upon, those things which the legislature has authorized, ought not to be held, by judicial construction, to be ultra vires.” The doctrine of ultra vires was recognised in Indian the case of Jahangir R.
Mod i v.