Companies Act - Sections 174,193, 213 and 213A - Mining lease granted to 1st Defendant’s son - Duty of director – Whether breach of trust - Whether implicit agreement to permit 1st Defendant to make such a decision - Whether 1st Defendant as managing director acted lawfully - Whether duty to disclose - Whether secret profit – Expert report admitted by consent - Whether Defendants entitled to challenge the expert’s methods and findings – Remedies - Measure of damages.

Company Law – Minority shareholder – Section 213A Companies Act – Civil Practice and Procedure – Rule 15.2 – Defendant’s application for Summary Judgment – Whether Defendant can obtain Summary Judgment against itself – Whether Claimant entitled to a trial – Whether trial of preliminary issue is appropriate - Anton Pillar order improperly executed – Mareva injunction- Whether orders to be set aside – Whether an order for interim payment should be made – Whether interim receiver should be appointed.

Civil Procedure – Employers liability – Duty of employer to provide a safe place and system of work – Contributory negligence – Assessment of damages

Claim of Public Interest Immunity – Duty of the court to balance competing aspects of the public interest in the administration of justice versus limiting disclosure to preserve national security – Minister’s Certificate should be given significant weight but is not conclusive – Three stage test to determine effectiveness of Certificate, relevance of documents sought to be withheld and whether documents if relevant should not be disclosed to avoid substantial harm to the public interest

Compulsory Land Acquisition – Compensation and Interest paid – Owner of land aggrieved – Reference by the Commissioner of Lands – Land Acquisition Act

Slip rule – Liberty to apply – Ambiguities or clarification – In what circumstances can a perfected order be altered – Set off – Can a court overrule the order of a court of concurrent jurisdiction

Dispossession by co-owner - Limitations of Actions Act - Factual possession - What constitutes animus possidendi.

Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants were joint or concurrent tortfeasors – classification of the defendants as joint or concurrent tortfeasors is ultimately not significant in this case – critical factor in determining whether settlement with 1st defendant bars continuation of the claim against the 2nd defendant is the nature and intendment of the settlement – no evidence to substantiate that settlement was in partial not full satisfaction of claim – basic rule/principle, that settlement extinguishes claim against other tortfeasor, which prevents the injustice of double recovery, is not disp

Claim arising from alleged procedural errors/unlawful actions in a prior claim – Proper forum to raise those issues is the Court of Appeal in appeal against outcome in prior claim – No separate cause of action arising – Constitutional claim inappropriate – Statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim – Abuse of the process of the court

Civil procedure – Claim form filed close to the expiration of limitation period – Application to extend the validity of the claim form filed within life of the claim form – Whether it is appropriate to extend validity of the claim form after claim became time-barred – Rule 8.15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002 as amended.