Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Gamble J sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is upheld with no order as to costs. 2. Paragraphs C to F of the order of the court below are set aside. 3. The counter application is referred back to the Western Cape High Court for the hearing of oral evidence on a date to be arranged but otherwise in terms of the order of Zondi J made on 15 January 2014. JUDGMENT Theron and Wallis JJA (Mpati P, Hancke and Swain AJJA concurring): [1] On 27 May 2014, this court granted an order as set out above. These are the reasons for that order. [2] On 7 and 8 January 2014 the City of Cape Towns Anti Land Invasion Unit (the Unit), with the assistance of both the Metro police and the South African Police Service (SAPS), demolished certain structures erected on Erf 150 (remaining extent) Philippi, the property of Mrs Iris Fischer, an elderly widow. On 10 January 2014, Mrs Fischer and the City, the first and second appellants, respectively...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Mathopo J sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. 2. The order of the court below is set aside and substituted with the following: The application is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where employed. JUDGMENT Van Zyl AJA (Mpati P, Ponnan and Willis JJA and Legodi AJA concurring) [1] This appeal concerns the right of shareholders of a company to requisition a shareholders meeting to effect the removal of a director. The majority shareholders of the second respondent, Nuco Chrome Bophuthatswana (Pty) Ltd (Nuco), seek to remove its managing director, Gerrit Marthinus Van Zyl (Van Zyl) from his position. The majority shareholders are the co-executors (the executors) of a deceased estate. They hold 78 per cent of the issued share capital in Nuco. The other shareholders are Van Zyl and an entity described as an association of persons ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North West High Court, (Mafikeng), Gura J sitting as court of first instance: 1. The appeal and cross-appeal are upheld to the extent set out below. 2. The order of the high court is set aside. 3. The matter is remitted to the high court for reconsideration. 4. Prior to the hearing of the matter in the high court: (i) The 21st and 22nd respondents are ordered, within 30 days of the grant of this order, to file affidavits in which they set out the following details: (a) The steps taken to ascertain the availability of suitable alternative accommodation for the 1st to 20th respondents; and (b) What alternative land and/or alternative accommodation is now or in the near future likely to become available for the 1st to 20th respondents. (ii) The 1st to 20th respondents are ordered to file affidavits setting out their personal circumstances including, but not limited to, the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women, and any s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North GautengHigh Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The late filing of the appellants supplementary record and heads of argument is condoned. 2. The appeal is reinstated. 3. The respondents are directed to pay the costs of opposition in the reinstatement application. 4. The appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 5. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following: (i) The defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiff the amount of R30000 being damages for unlawful arrest and detention, which amount shall bear interest at the rate of 15,5 per cent per annum from 8 February 2013 until the date of payment and in relation thereto, the defendant is directed to pay the first plaintiffs costs. (ii) The second plaintiffs claim for special damages is dismissed and in relation thereto the second plaintiff is to pay the defendants costs. JUDGMENT Theron JA (Navsa, Shongwe and Willis JJA and Legod...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North GautengHigh Court, Pretoria (Vorster AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is upheld with costs. 2. The order of the high court is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following order: The special plea is dismissed with costs. 3. The matter is referred back to the high court for adjudication on the particulars of claim and the substantive defence. JUDGMENT Theron JA (Lewis, Bosielo, Theron and Willis JJA and Legodi AJAconcurring): [1] The appellant, Royal Sechaba Holdings (Pty) Ltd (Royal Sechaba), instituted action against the respondents, Mr Grant William Coote (Coote), and Mr Daniel Elardus Engelbrecht (Engelbrecht), the first and second respondents, respectively, in the North Gauteng High Court for payment of damages of R13122516 alternatively R4140000, for an alleged breach, by them, of their fiduciary duties. The respondents raised a special plea of issue estoppel. The high court (Vorster AJ) upheld the special plea and dismissed Roy...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth (Chetty J sitting as court of first instance): 1. The order of the high court is varied to read: paragraph 1 of the order granted in case no. 881/08 is amended as follows: œIt is declared that a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of all assets acquired by them up to 15 November 2007.? 2. Save for the above variation, the appeal is otherwise dismissed. 3. The appellant is to pay the respondents costs in this appeal, including costs of two counsel, where employed. JUDGMENT Shongwe JA (Wallis, Willis JJA, Mathopo and Mocumie AJJA concurring) [1] On 7 December 2010 (in case no. 881/08) the Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth (Chetty J) made an order against the appellant, inter alia, that It is declared that a universal partnership existed between the plaintiff [respondent] and the defendant [appellant] of all assets acquired by them during the period 1998 to 15 November 2007. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Hughes AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is dismissed with costs. 2. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following: (a) The appellant is ordered to vacate Portion 2, Farm Bleshoenderpan 211, Registration Division MR, Dardanelin, Alldays, Limpopo Province (the property) with immediate effect. (b) The guarantee provided by ABSA Bank Ltd on 7 February 2013 on behalf of Marde (Edms) Bpk is sufficient security for the appellants enrichment claim in respect of improvements to the property. (c) The guarantee shall lapse should the appellant not institute action as contemplated in the order of the high court, within 30 days of this order. JUDGMENT Mathopo AJA(Mthiyane DP, Lewis, Mhlantla and Saldulker JJA concurring): [1] On 19 May 2014 this appeal was heard and the order set out above was made by the court. It was then indicated that the reasons for the order would follow. These are the reasons....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court (Gamble J sitting as court of first instance) The appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT PONNAN et SALDULKER JJA (MAYA, LEACH and SWAIN JJA concurring): [1] This appeal, with the leave of the court below, concerns the validity of a suretyship. Judgment was granted by the Western Cape High Court (Gamble J) in the sum of R16 631071,41, together with interest and costs, in favour of the respondent, Structured Mezzanine Investments Limited (SMI), against the first appellant, Gerhardus Adriaan Odendal (Odendal) and the second appellant, Gabriel Joshua Jordaan (Jordaan) in terms of that deed of suretyship (the suretyship) which had been signed by the appellants and Francois Basson (Basson), who were the trustees of FXT Property Trust (the Trust), as security for a loan to the Trust. [2] On 18 February 2008, SMI, a bridging financier, approved an application by the Trust for a loan facility in the amount of R10 million to partly fund a sectional title...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Wright AJ and Makhubele AJ sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The costs are to be paid jointly and severally by the appellants and are to be taxed by the first and second appellants on the scale as between attorney and client. JUDGMENT Mthiyane DP (Ponnan, Saldulker JJA, Hancke and Mathopo AJJA concurring): [1] This is an appeal against an order of the North Gauteng High Court (Wright AJ and Makhubele AJ), removing the names of the first and second appellants from the roll of attorneys and granting other ancillary relief. The ancillary relief included an order prohibiting the appellants from handling or operating trust accounts and the appointing of a curator to administer and control the appellantss trust accounts, to protect the interests of their trust creditors. The appeal is with the leave of the high court. [2] The first appellant, Mr Thomas Walter Hepple (Hepple), was admitted as an attorney by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from:North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Kollapen and Webster JJ sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT Leach JA(Lewis JA and Hancke, Swain and Mathopo AJJA concurring) [1] This is a case about garbage or, more precisely, about the amount the appellant, a local municipality, owes the respondent for rendering refuse and waste removal services under a contract concluded pursuant to a tender process. A claim by the respondent for payment of an amount it alleged was due and owing was dismissed in a magistrates court but upheld on appeal to the North Gauteng High Court. This further appeal is with this courts leave. For convenience I intend to refer to the appellant as the municipality and the respondent as Paphiri. [2] Chaos and confusion have bedevilled the matter from the outset, a position helped neither by the pleadings nor the haphazard presentation of the evidence in the trial court. Sifting the wheat from the chaff, it appears tha...
Tag this Judgment!