The recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment in Lazarus Mbethe v United Manganese of Kalahari raises jurisprudential questions regarding statutory derivative actions in South Africa. For example, the SCA did not agree with the court a quo's ruling that the discretion to be exercised by the court is limited by provisions of section 165(5). The SCA also questioned whether it is necessary for South African courts to follow the good faith criterion in the Australian case of Swansson v Pratt as adopted into South African law through Mouritzen v Greystones Enterprises (Pty) Ltd & Another. This article contributes to these questions, and proposes possible criteria for other requirements in section 165(5)(b) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008. These other requirements are that the statutory derivative action proceedings must involve “a trial of a serious question of material consequence to a company” and that proceedings be “in the best interests of the company”.

最近最高法院 (SCA) 对Lazarus Mbethe v United Manganese of Kalahari 的判决提出了有关南非法定衍生诉讼的法理学问题。例如，SCA 不同意法院的裁决，即法院行使的自由裁量权受到第 165(5) 条规定的限制。该SCA还质疑是否有必要为南非法院遵循的澳大利亚案例诚信准则Swansson v普拉特通过采用到南非法律Mouritzen v格雷斯通斯企业（控股）有限公司与另. 本文对这些问题做出了贡献，并为 2008 年第 71 号公司法第 165(5)(b) 条中的其他要求提出了可能的标准。这些其他要求是，法定衍生诉讼程序必须涉及“对严重问题的审判”公司的重大后果”，并且诉讼程序“符合公司的最佳利益”。