Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from:South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Sutherland J sitting as court of first instance): The appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT Lewis JA (dissenting): [1] The respondent, Pangbourne Properties Ltd (Pangbourne), is a public company listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange. Its principal business is the acquisition and letting of commercial and industrial premises. The appellant, Africast (Pty) Ltd (Africast), is a company within a group that undertakes property investment and development. In late 2006 and for the first two months of 2007 the parties negotiated about the development of commercial property in Sunninghill, Johannesburg, which they designated The District. Their representatives agreed on the terms of a contract for the building of commercial premises by Africast; for the letting of those premises to tenants and for the cession of the rights under the leases to Pangbourne, which was obliged to pay the purchase price for the improved properties to Afric...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Griesel J, Fourie and Saldanha JJ concurring) sitting as court of appeal. The appeal is struck from the roll. JUDGMENT Maya JA: (Shongwe, Saldulker JJA and Mathopo AJA concurring) [1] This is an unopposed appeal against a postponement order of the full court of the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Griesel J, Fourie and Saldanha JJ concurring), with its leave. The appeal was heard and struck off the roll on 10 March 2014 and the court undertook that its reasons would follow. These are the reasons. [2] The background facts are simple. The appellant (Absa) launched action proceedings against the respondents in the high court based on mortgage bonds registered in its favour over immovable properties belonging to the respondents. The respective claims were commenced by way of simple summonses to which were annexed copies of the relevant mortgage bonds and the deeds of suretyship signed by the spouses of the respective owners. In due cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Saldulker J sitting as court of first instance): 1. The appeal against paragraph d of the order of the court below is allowed and the order is amended by the deletion of that paragraph. Subject thereto and paragraphs e, f and g being renumbered d, e and f respectively, the order of the court below is confirmed. 2. Save as is set out in paragraph 1 hereto, the appeal is dismissed with costs. JUDGMENT Theron JA (Ponnan and Mhlantla JJA and Swain AJA concurring): [1] This appeal relates to the entitlement of the respondent, Rheinmettal Denel Munition Ltd (RDM), to a statement of account and if necessary, the payment of such moneys as may be found to be due to it upon the debatement of such account, by the appellant, Warren Bowles Corporation Communication CC (the close corporation). [2] On or about 19 February 2010 the parties entered into a partly written and partly oral agreement (the main agreement), in terms whereof the close cor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: LimpopoHigh Court, Thohoyandou (Hetisani J sitting as court of first instance): The appeal against sentence is dismissed. THERON JA (Navsa and Petse JJA concurring): [1] The appellant stood trial in the Limpopo High Court (Hetisani J) on one count of rape read with provisions of Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and on the alternative count of contravening s 14(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 (having unlawful carnal intercourse with a girl below the age of 16 years). The appellant pleaded not guilty to the main count and guilty to the alternative count. The State did not accept his plea in respect of the alternative count and pleas of not guilty in respect of both counts were entered by the court. [2] The appellant made a number of admissions at the commencement of the trial. He admitted that he had had sexual intercourse with the complainant on 17 October 2003 but that such sexual intercourse was with the consent of the complainant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Webster J, Mngqibisa-Thusi J concurring, sitting on appeal from the Magistrates Court): The appeals are upheld and the convictions and sentences on all counts are set aside JUDGMENT Wallis JA(Mhlantla JA and Mocumie AJA concurring) [1] This is a case about a baboon. By all accounts, until it apparently met an untimely end, the baboon behaved impeccably. The saga has involved a trial in the district court over four days, an appeal to the full court of the North Gauteng High Court, a petition to this court and then this appeal. The expenditure of time and effort and the costs to the public purse and the appellants, Dr and Mrs Macrae, have been considerable. Those include emotional costs, because for seven and a half years the trial and their convictions for defeating or obstructing the administration of justice and theft of the baboon have hung over their heads. And all this was caused by a bureaucratic insistence by the officials of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: South Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg), Hutton AJ sitting as court of first instance. The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel. JUDGMENT Saldulker JA (Mthiyane DP, Lewis, Ponnan, Maya JJA concurring): [1] This is an appeal against the judgment and order by Hutton AJ in summary judgment proceedings in the South Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) on 5 March 2013. The appeal is with the leave of the high court . [2] Described by Hutton AJ as a work of epic proportions, the combined summons issued by the respondent, Investec Bank Limited (Investec) against the first appellant, Dean Gillian Rees (Mr Rees), the second appellant, Edward Christopher Jowitt (Mr Jowitt), and Benjamin Henry Jowitt NO, in his capacity as trustee of the Aljebami Trust (the trust), runs into some 250 pages, consisting of 14 claims in all, set out in the particulars of claim from claim A to claim N.[1]The claims are supported by annexures which in turn run int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Limpopo High Court (Makgoba J sitting as court of first instance): The following order is made: 1. The appeal is upheld and the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court are set aside. JUDGMENT SALDULKER JJA (NAVSA and LEACH JA concurring): [1] The appellant was charged in the Limpopo High Court on two counts of rape. On 13 August 2003 he was convicted on those counts and sentenced to life imprisonment on each, ordered to run concurrently. On 29 January 2013 the appellant was granted leave to appeal against both the convictions and sentences. [2] There were regrettable occurrences before and during the trial. First, in respect of the investigation of this matter, I make the following comments. The complainant was taken by the police, and transported to the trauma centre for a medical examination on the same day as the incident. It appears that no steps were taken to obtain DNA sampling for analysis. In S v Carolus 1this court emphatically stated that it was im...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Limpopo High Court (Lukoto J sitting as court of first instance): The following order is made: 1. The appeal against the sentence is upheld. The sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the court a quo on each of the two counts of rape is set aside and substituted with the following sentence: (a) On count one “ the accused is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. (b) On count two “ the accused is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. (c) Ten years of the sentence on count two are to run concurrently with the sentence on count one. The accused is sentenced to an effective 30 years imprisonment. 2. The sentence is antedated to 29 June 2001, in terms of s 282 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, being the date upon which the sentences were imposed. JUDGMENT SALDULKER JA (NAVSA and LEACH JJA concurring): [1] This is an appeal directed against sentence only. On 26 April 2001, the appellant, Mr P N, was convicted in the regional court, Thohoyandou on two counts o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Dolamo AJ sitting as court of first instance): (a) The application for condonation is dismissed with costs. (b) The applicant for condonation is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the respondent in opposing the lapsed appeal. (c) In both instances (a) and (b) the costs shall include the costs of two counsel. JUDGMENT Ponnan JA (Leach, Petse, Saldulker JJA and Mocumie AJA concurring): [1] After the record had been filed in this matter the appeal lapsed for failure on the part of the appellant (now the applicant) “ Express Model Trading 289 CC (Express Model)“ to prosecute it by timeously filing its heads of argument. The initial question that is before us is whether the default by Express Model should be condoned and the appeal revived. Before turning to that question, it is necessary to describe how the appeal arose and the circumstances in which it came to lapse. [2] During February 2010 the respondent, the Dolphin Ridg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
On appeal from: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria (Kruger AJ sitting as court of first instance): (a) Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of the high court of 6 June 2012 are amended to read as follows: 1. The first defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiffs” (a) the sum of R720 000; (b) the sum of whatever interest accrued on the said sum of R720 000 pursuant to its investment in an interest-bearing account calculated up to and including 9 December 2009; (c) interest on the sum of R720 000 calculated at the legal rate of 15,5% per annum from 10 December 2009 to date of payment. 2. The first defendant is further ordered to pay the plaintiffs the sum of R264 723 together with interest thereon calculated at the legal rate of 15,5% per annum from 29 June 2011 to date of payment. (b) The appeal is otherwise dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel and to be taxed on the scale as between attorney and client. JUDGMENT Leach JA (Ponnan and Mhlantla JJA, Mathopo ...
Tag this Judgment!