Frozen funds and feuding directors land private school in court
In a to and fro issue involving directorship changes, FNB had frozen the independent school’s bank accounts.
Image: Freepik
A Pretoria High Court has ruled in favour of FNB after a private school accused the bank of defying a court order by freezing its bank account for a second time.
In a to-and-fro issue involving directorship changes, FNB had frozen the independent school’s bank accounts until there was a resolution in the form of updated official records.
In the latest matter, the North Gauteng High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application brought by Limelight Academy Institution, finding that the bank’s most recent decision to place a hold on the account did not amount to contempt of court.
The dispute centres on an earlier court order granted in April 2025, which instructed FNB to immediately remove a block placed on Limelight Academy’s bank account amid an internal fallout between company directors.
At the time, the independent school had removed one of its directors, Makwena Rose Molele, and stripped her of signing powers on the account. Molele disputed the decision, prompting the school’s remaining director, Thatsiswe Khabo, to request that FNB freeze the account until the matter was resolved.
“Molele did not take kindly to the resolutions passed by the applicant, and a to-and-fro in respect of the funds held in the applicant’s bank account ensued,” the ruling reads.
That led to court proceedings, with the High Court ordering FNB to lift the block. The bank complied, updated its mandates, and restored Khabo as the sole authorised signatory.
However, the conflict resurfaced months later after the Companies Tribunal ruled in August 2025 that Molele had been unlawfully removed as a director due to non-compliance with the Companies Act. The Tribunal ordered the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CPIC) to reinstate her name as a director.
Following that ruling, Molele informed FNB of her reinstatement and asked to be restored as a signatory on the school’s bank account. In response, FNB placed a precautionary hold on the account in December 2025, saying it had received updated CIPC records reflecting Molele’s directorship.
The bank told Limelight Academy that, in the absence of a formal dispute of the CIPC records, it intended to accept Molele’s instruction and would keep the account on hold until new mandates were signed by both directors.
Limelight Academy then returned to court, arguing that the renewed block was a clear violation of the April 2025 order and amounted to contempt of court. The school said the bank was once again acting at Molele’s behest and interfering in its internal affairs.
FNB opposed the application, arguing that it had fully complied with the earlier court order and that the new block arose from different facts, including the Companies Tribunal ruling and updated CIPC records.
Judge Janse van Nieuwenhuizen agreed that the April 2025 order referred specifically to the block that existed at the time and did not prohibit FNB from imposing a new hold under changed circumstances.
“The court ordered the respondent on 8 April 2025 to immediately remove the hold or block,” the judge said. “Does this order prevent the respondent from placing a new block on the account in future in changed circumstances? I do not believe it does.”
The judge added that courts are generally reluctant to prohibit future conduct that was not contemplated when an order was granted.
While acknowledging that the underlying dispute between the school’s directors remained unresolved, the court said Limelight Academy had failed to prove non-compliance by FNB of the previous order on a balance of probabilities.
The court declined to rule on whether FNB’s latest conduct was substantively correct, saying that the issue would be better dealt with in separate proceedings where Molele was a party.
Limelight Academy’s application was dismissed with costs.
IOL BUSINESS