Sipho Pityana has been refused leave to appeal by the Pretoria High Court against its March 2026 judgment, which upheld Absa’s decision to remove him from its board in 2021.
The former Absa board member says he was ‘strongly’ advised by his legal team to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) directly after the Pretoria High Court refused him leave to appeal last month. The court found Absa had acted rationally in removing him from the board in November 2021.
“We will be filing our papers this week,” Pityana told Moneyweb.
He has consistently maintained that his removal was unlawful and was influenced by an informal process followed by the Reserve Bank’s Prudential Authority (PA), which reportedly deemed him unfit and improper to take over the role of Absa chair, for which he was the preferred candidate. He says this informal process denied him a fair hearing in the matter.
Dispute linked to Absa chair succession
Pityana was widely expected to take over from retiring Wendy Lucas-Bull as chair of Absa in 2021, but that appointment was allegedly derailed when the PA’s deputy governor Kuben Naidoo approached former Absa CEO Maria Ramos to enquire about the circumstances of Pityana’s resignation from AngloGold Ashanti.
Pityana previously served as chair of AngloGold Ashanti, where he faced accusations of sexual harassment – claims he has steadfastly denied.
Absa ultimately relied on the Companies Act to remove him, citing a breakdown in trust, reputational concerns and a conflict of interest.
Facts around the removal by Absa
Judge Petrus van Niekerk of the Pretoria High Court last month found that Pityana “does not rely on any alleged incorrect factual finding by this Court, but relies on the contention that this Court applied the legal principles in relation to a special statutory review incorrectly and should have completely reconsidered the impugned decision on review instead of applying the rationality test”.
Pityana’s legal team argued that the previous decision by the court – which dismissed his application to review and set aside his removal as a director of Absa – drew incorrect inferences from the agreed facts and should have arrived at different legal conclusions.
Pityana had earlier abandoned his claim for reinstatement and reasonable compensation, but persisted in his application to have the court declare Absa’s action unlawful.
Court says matter became moot
Absa argued that this rendered the matter moot (irrelevant) and did not require the court’s continued attention.
Judge Van Niekerk said the matter should have been dismissed “on the basis of becoming moot at the time when [Pityana] abandoned his claim for an order to be reinstated and compensation”.
The court further found there was little prospect of another court coming to a different decision on whether Absa acted rationally in removing Pityana as director.
Pityana had argued that exceptional circumstances warranted the court’s attention in the appeal application, but the court disagreed, saying there are remedies available under the Companies Act for special statutory reviews.
SCA to hear the matter
Absa’s legal team argued there was no “discrete and justiciable issue before the court and that it would be an exercise in futility and a waste of judiciary resources if leave for appeal is granted”.
Judge Van Nierkerk added that the SCA will ultimately decline to entertain the merits of the appeal.
Pityana clearly disagrees and is now taking the matter to the SCA.
In June 2025, Pityana won an order in the Pretoria High Court declaring that the PA had exceeded its powers under the Banks Act by engaging in an informal process regarding Absa’s selection of a new chair. Both Absa and the PA are appealing that ruling.
This is a separate legal matter from the Pretoria High Court judgment delivered last month concerning Pityana’s removal from the Absa board.
This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
