For a long time now, I have considered the issue of a quorum at meetings and the necessity or otherwise of being quorate.

Recently, I decided to research the matter and I must say, it was an exciting venture!

My punch words in considering this matter are “number” and “validity”.
In corporate governance, it refers to the minimum number of governors required to transact business of the organisation and make valid decisions.

Colleagues will recall an article where I alluded to the corporate being an artificial or juristic person with human beings giving it life by managing the organisation. To avoid arbitrariness and/or in sufficiently informed decisions, safeguards have been put in place to promote the success of the company by prescribing minimum thresholds for validation of decisions.

Having said that, it is my humble view that all corporate decisions are made by quorate governors. Therefore, the practice of attending a meeting just to form the quorum and leaving the meeting a few minutes later at less than the minimum required does not validate the proceedings for a period where the meeting was not quorate.

Interestingly, I learnt that a minute of the loss of quorum must be recorded and if the inquorate governors wish to discuss anything with respect to the business that was scheduled to be transacted it would be on the basis of non binding discussions.

Therefore, there should be no dilemma about the necessity of a quorum. It is always necessary for validating decisions…any contrary views? I am excited to hear from you all!

Thank you!