JEFFREYS BAY SKI-BOAT CLUB

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "JEFFREYS BAY SKI-BOAT CLUB"

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between CASE NO: 126/2014 Date heard: 14 August 2014 Date delivered: 26 August 2014 KOUGA MUNICIPALITY Applicant And JEFFREYS BAY SKI-BOAT CLUB Respondent Agreement of lease duration for indeterminate period termination on notice whether periodic lease found agreement terminable at will of either party notice of termination effective Interpretation of lease whether clause requiring provision of alternative premises in event of termination by lessor entitling lessee to remain in occupation Held: obligation not reciprocal in nature termination of agreement effective continued occupation unlawful clause relating to provision of alternative premises constituting cause of action available to lessee notwithstanding termination of lease agreement Order of ejectment granted. JUDGMENT GOOSEN, J. [1] This is an application for the ejectment of the respondent from a property owned by the applicant. The facts are not in dispute. [2] During 1986 the applicant s predecessor in title concluded an agreement of lease with the respondent. A written lease agreement was signed, the effective date of which was 1 July The agreement provides that: Die huurtermyn is vir n onbepaalde tydperk, maar sal die partye die ooreenkoms kan beiendig met drie (3) maande skriftelike wedersydse kennisgewing tot die effek.

2 2 [3] Provision was made for payment of rental in an amount of R1.00 payable annually in advance on or before 7 July each year. [4] Clause 16 of the agreement provides that: Indien die VERHUURDER die huur opsê omdat die eiendom vir n ander doel benodig word, hetsy in terme van dorpsbeplanning of hetsy hoegenaamd enige ander rede, sal die VERHUURDER die HUURDER voorsien van n ander gebou van soortgelyke waarde en gelyke wat aan die doeleindes van klousule 4 voldoen. [5] On 7 January 2013 the applicant gave the respondent written notice of termination of the lease agreement giving the respondent 3 months within which to vacate the premises. It is common cause that the applicant indicated in the letter that it required the property for its own use. It is also common cause that the respondent disputed the entitlement of the applicant to terminate the agreement and that it relies, inter-alia, upon clause 16. In this regard the respondent takes the view that until it is provided with the alternative accommodation as envisaged by clause 16 it is not in unlawful occupation of the property. [6] Before turning to consideration of the applicant s case and the defences raised, it is necessary first to deal with a matter relating to the evidence properly before the court. In its answering affidavits the respondent put up an affidavit by Robert Bush, who was the chairperson of the respondent at the time that the lease agreement was concluded. That affidavit seeks to provide an explanation for clause 16 by pointing to considerations which were apparently within the contemplation of the parties at the time of concluding the agreement. In its reply the applicant foreshadowed an application to strike out the affidavit on the basis that its content is inadmissible and irrelevant to the adjudication of the issues in the application. At the hearing of the matter Mr Nepgen, on behalf of the applicant, moved for the striking-out of the affidavit on the basis, inter-alia that it

3 3 offends against the parol evidence rule. I was informed by Mr Mullins, for the respondent, that the striking-out is not opposed, and that in any event, the respondent did not intend to rely upon the contents of the affidavit. The affidavit plainly offends the parol evidence rule. Its content is therefore inadmissible and falls to be struck out. [7] I turn now to the merits of the application. It is appropriate to begin with the first defence raised by the respondent. This was to the effect that the lease is a periodical lease and as such notice of termination must be given in such a manner that the notice period expires at the end of the period provided for in the lease (i.e. on 6 July of any one year). Since the notice that was given purported to terminate the lease before the expiry of the lease period, it is invalid and therefore ineffective. On this basis, therefore, the respondent s continued occupation of the property is not unlawful and no order of ejectment may be granted against it. [8] The applicant countered this argument by pointing to the terms of the lease, indicating that the period of the lease is unspecified but that it may be terminated at the will of either party on notice. This is specifically provided for in clause 1 of the lease agreement. It was therefore submitted that the lease fell into that category of agreements the duration of which was at the will of either party and therefore that it was not a periodical lease. [9] AJ Kerr in Law of Sale and Lease, 1 when dealing with the duration of lease agreements, states that lease agreements fall into three categories, namely those for a fixed period; those for an unspecified period which are terminable at the instance either of the lessor or lessee or both; and those which are also for an indeterminate period but continue for defined periods e.g. daily, monthly or yearly. 1 3 rd Ed p271

4 4 [10] In relation to periodic leases the authorities all indicate that such leases may be terminated on reasonable notice to a party and that the period of the notice, in order to be effective, must coincide with the period of the lease. Thus where notice is given the notice period must terminate at the end of the period of the lease. [11] The argument advanced by the respondent would be definitive of the application if it is found that the agreement of lease is indeed a periodic lease. That requires consideration of the terms of the agreement itself and an appropriate construction of the terms within the context of the agreement as a whole. Clause 1, as already mentioned, states unequivocally that the agreement is for an indeterminate period. It however goes on to specify that the agreement may be terminated by either party upon provision of a defined notice period. Clause 2 deals with the rental payable as well as the period for which rental is payable and how that rental is to be paid. It provides for payment of a nominal rental annually in advance. [12] The provision of a specified period for the payment of rental does not, in my view mean that the agreement is therefore a periodic agreement. Lease agreements whether of a fixed term or an indeterminate term ordinarily provide for the payment of rental within defined periods. In this instance the agreement specifically accords to both the lessor and lessee a right to terminate the agreement on notice. That, in my view, places the agreement within the second category of agreements referred to by Kerr. Accordingly the contentions regarding the effectiveness of the notice terminating the lease agreement do not apply. [13] In this instance the applicant gave written notice of three months in duration, and there can be no doubt that the notice was effective and validly issued. The only question is whether the reference to three months refers to calendar months. Nothing however turns on this since the respondent has remained in occupation

5 5 for a substantial period beyond the termination of the notice period even if it is taken to refer to calendar months. [14] The second defence raised by the respondent is based on an alleged waiver. In this regard the respondent, relying upon the fact that the respondent had paid the rental in advance for a period of 50 years, sought to argue that the applicants acceptance of the payment of rental in advance constituted a waiver of its right to terminate the agreement until the expiry of the 50 year period. Reliance was placed on Watts v Goodman 1929 WLD 199 at 200. [15] The case of Watts involved the acceptance of rental by the lessor in wholly different circumstances to that which applies here. In that case the lessee was obliged to effect certain improvements to the leased property. That obligation was breached. The lessor thereafter accepted payment of the rental due in terms of the agreement in full knowledge of the lessee s breach. The court, at p 213, quoted with approval an earlier judgment in Sher v Maynier (1918, WLD. 29) where it was said that: The rule of English law and the law administered in this country agree in this, that the receipt of rent by a landlord for a period subsequent to a breach of a lease entitling the landlord to forfeit the lease, with full knowledge of the forfeiture of the lease, amounts to a waiver of the right to forfeit. The rule in English law appears also to be that the receipt of rent in the same circumstances without prejudice also operates as a waiver. But the forfeiture is not waived by the mere receipt of rent accrued before the breach, nor by receipt of rent after motion brought for ejectment on account of the breach. [16] For similar cases where the issue of waiver arising consequent upon acceptance of rental is discussed see Penny s Properties Ltd v South African Cabinet Works Ltd ) Sa 302 (C) at 310 and Joosub Ltd v Moosa Sa 1120 (C) at In these cases the acceptance of rental had occurred subsequent to the breach or the stipulated time to vacate the property. It was held that the defence of waiver could be raised and upheld subject to the discharge of the onus which ordinarily rests on the party relying on an alleged waiver.

6 6 [17] The acceptance of the payment of rental in advance does not without more constitute a waiver of the lessor s right to terminate a lease agreement. The payment of rental in advance ordinarily entitles the lessee to no more than to have the advance payment applied in reduction of the rental as and when it falls due (see De Wet v Union Government 1934 AD 59 at 68, 71; Arundel Mansions (Pty) Ltd v Hendry 1969 (3) SA 576 (T) at 578E). [18] The respondent further argued that upon a proper contextual interpretation of the lease agreement it must be found that clause 16 imposed a reciprocal obligation upon the applicant to provide the respondent with a suitable alternative building of similar value to that constructed by the respondent on the property. It was argued that any other construction would have the effect of enriching the applicant at the expense of the respondent, since it was the respondent who developed the property for its use as contemplated by the lease agreement. The respondent therefore contended that it was not obliged to vacate the property pursuant to the cancellation of the agreement, until such time as the applicant met its obligations in terms of clause 16 [19] The applicant contended that clause 16 is, in the first instance, not a provision which provides for reciprocal obligations on the part of the parties. The applicant argued that the defence raised by the respondent was in the nature of the exceptio non adempleti contractus. That defence, it was submitted, was misplaced since the applicant, in terminating the lease agreement, was not seeking to enforce by way of specific performance any obligation in terms of the agreement. It was further submitted that the right to claim ejectment upon lawful termination of the agreement, as contemplated by the lease agreement, arose ex lege and not ex contractu. To the extent that clause 16 imposed upon the applicant an obligation to furnish alternative premises to the respondent the clause does not require the delivery of such alternative accommodation as a condition precedent to the respondent vacating the property. It was therefore

7 7 argued that at best for the respondent it would be entitled to rely upon the clause in separate and unrelated proceedings. It could not, so the argument went, hold over until such time as the applicant honours its obligations in terms of clause 16. [20] In interpreting the agreement meaning must be assigned to the words used in the agreement having regard to the context of the provision or provisions in the light of the agreement read as a whole. In Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) 593 (SCA) at paragraph 18 the approach is summarised as follows: Whatever the nature of the document, consideration must be given to the language used in the light of the ordinary rules of grammar and syntax; the context in which the provision appears; the apparent purpose to which it is directed and the material known to those responsible for its production. Where more than one meaning is possible each possibility must be weighed in the light of all these factors. The process is objective, not subject. A sensible meaning is to be preferred to one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike results or undermines the apparent purpose of the document. Judges must be alert to, and guard against, the temptation to substitute what they regard as reasonable, sensible or businesslike for the words actually used. To do so in regard to a statute or statutory instrument is to cross the divide between interpretation and legislation; in a contractual context, it is to make a contract for the parties other than the one they in fact made. The inevitable point of departure is the language of the provision itself, read in context, and having regard to the purpose of the provision in the background to the preparation and production of the document. (Footnotes omitted) [21] What is apparent, and is common cause between the parties, is that the purpose of the agreement was to enable the respondent to develop upon the leased property a facility for use by it and its members as a ski-boat clubhouse. It is clear from the agreement that a nominal rental was to be paid for the use of the property for an indefinite period. The agreement itself makes provision for termination by either party upon three months written notice. Clause 7 of the agreement also provides for summary termination of the agreement by the lessor in the event of a breach of any of the obligations undertaken by the lessee and specifically provides for immediate occupation by the lessor. In terms of clause 9, the lessee is not entitled to effect any improvements upon the property without the prior written consent of the lessor. The clause specifically records that any

8 8 improvements effected to the property become the sole property of the lessor without payment of any compensation to the lessee. [22] It is in this overall context, and having regard to the purpose of the agreement, that clause 16 is to be interpreted. In particular, clause 16 must be read in the context of the provisions providing for termination of the agreement. The language of clause 16 makes it clear that the obligation to provide a similar building of similar value which could be utilised as a ski boat clubhouse only arises if the lessor terminates the agreement because it requires the property for some other purpose. The language also indicates that the obligation arises once the agreement is terminated. It is clear from the language of clause 16 that it does not require that an alternative building be provided prior to or as a condition precedent to the obligation to vacate the property upon lawful termination as provided by clause 1. [23] In ESE Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v Kramer 1973 (2) SA 805 (C) at , the principles for determining reciprocity of obligations in a contract are stated as follows: In a bilateral contract certain obligations may be reciprocal in the sense that the performance of one may be conditional upon the performance, or tender of performance, of the other. This reciprocity may itself be bilateral in a sense that the performance, or tender of performance, of them represent concurrent conditions, that is, each is conditional upon the other. A ready example of this would be delivery of the res vendita and payment of the purchase price under a cash sale (see Crispette and Candy Co. Ltd. v Oscar Michaelis, N.O. and Another 1947 (4) SA 521 (A) at 537). Alternatively, the reciprocity may be one sided in that the complete performance of his contractual obligation by one party may be a condition precedent to the performance of his reciprocal obligation by the other. In other words the obligation is, though interdependent fall to be performed consecutively. An example of this would be a locatio-conductio operis whereunder the conductor operis is normally obliged to carry out the work which he is engaged to do before the contract money can be claimed. In such a case, the obligation to pay the money is conditional on the performance of the obligation to carry out the work, but, of course, the converse does not apply (see e.g. Kamaludin v. Gihwala, 1956 (2) SA 323 (C) at p. 326; de Wet and Yeats: Kontraktereg, 3 rd ed., p.139.) Reciprocity of obligations does not depend, however, merely on the time fixed for the performance thereof. Thus, the mere fact that the contract specifies that the obligations or due to be performed on the same day, does not lead to the inference that the parties intended them to be

9 9 reciprocal (see: Strydom v. Van Rensburg, 1949 (3) SA 465 (T) at p. 467). For a reciprocity to exist there must be such a relationship between the obligation by the one party and that due by the other party as to indicate that one was undertaken in exchange for the performance of the other and, in cases where the obligations are not consecutive, vice versa. (see de Wet and Yeats, Kontraktereg, p.138; Myburg v. Central Motor Works, 1968 (4) S.A. 864 (T) at page 865; Anastasopoulos v. Gelderblom, 1970 (2) S.A. 61 (N) at p. 636). [24] It is instructive that the applicant s right to terminate the agreement was not qualified by the respondent s contractual right to remain in occupation until such time as the contractual obligation to provide alternative accommodation was honoured by the applicant. Clause 16 provides no time for performance of the contractual obligation it imposes upon the applicant. [25] In my view, the obligation imposed upon the applicant in terms of clause 16 is not a reciprocal obligation in the sense that the applicant is precluded from terminating the agreement and claiming possession of the property until such time as it has provided an alternative building for use by the respondent. [26] The argument by the respondent that such a construction would give rise to an insensible and unbusinesslike result which defeats the object and purpose of the agreement, loses sight of the specific provision in clause 9, which provides that any improvements effected to the property become the sole property of the applicant and the applicant is not obliged to compensate the respondent for such improvements. It was therefore specifically contemplated by the parties that such improvements as would be affected to the property would not give rise to any reciprocal obligation to compensate the respondent in the event of the agreement being terminated. It was argued that clause 16 was introduced to meet this eventuality and to provide some protection for the respondent in the circumstances. It may well be so. If however the parties had intended that an alternative building would be provided as a condition precedent to the vacation of the building by the respondent then a specific term to that effect could easily have been incorporated into the agreement. It was not. The intention of the parties must therefore be discerned with reference to the interpretation of the

10 10 language used in the agreement. That language suggests that the applicant s obligation to provide a suitable alternative building is one which exists separately from the obligation of the respondent to vacate the building. The latter is an obligation which arises ex lege and upon lawful termination of the agreement. The respondent is accordingly not entitled to seek performance of the applicant s obligations in terms of clause 16 prior to vacating the property (cf. Dawnford Investments CC and another v Schuurman 1994 (2) SA 412 (N) at 418B). [27] In the light of the conclusion to which I have come it is not only unnecessary but also inappropriate to deal with the further argument advanced by the applicant, namely that such obligation as arises in terms of clause 16 is unenforceable by reason that clause 16 is void for vagueness, alternatively, that it is an invalid obligation by reason of certain statutory prescripts. Those aspects no doubt will feature in any action to enforce the obligations imposed by clause 16. [28] It follows that the applicant is entitled to the order that it seeks. The applicant s notice of motion seeks an order that the respondent vacate the property within ten days of the date of the order. In my view the respondent ought to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to vacate the property. I shall therefore make provision for such a reasonable period within which the respondent must vacate the property. [29] In the result I make the following order: 1. The respondent and all those persons who occupy Erf 1389, Jeffreys Bay and the structures erected thereon ( the Property ), through respondent be evicted from the property, and are to vacate the property within one month of the date of this order. 2. Failing compliance with the order in paragraph 1 above, the Sheriff of this Court is authorised to take whatever measures are required to effect the

11 11 eviction of the Respondent and those persons who currently occupy the property through it. 3. The Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application. G. GOOSEN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Appearances For the Applicant Adv. J. J. Nepgen Instructed by C. W. Malan Jeffreys Bay Inc. c/o Schoeman Oosthuisen For the Respondent Adv. N. Mullins Instructed by Michael Randell Attorneys

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. P. A. PEARSON (PTY) LTD Applicant

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. P. A. PEARSON (PTY) LTD Applicant IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 13270/2012 In the matter between: P. A. PEARSON (PTY) LTD Applicant And EThekwini MUNICIPALITY NATIONAL MINISTER

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO. (3) REVISED. DATE SIGNATURE CASE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN. Case No.: 14639/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN. Case No.: 14639/2017 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE

More information

Case No.: 2708/2014 Date heard: 09 October 2014 Date delivered: 10 October In the matter between: Second Applicant. and.

Case No.: 2708/2014 Date heard: 09 October 2014 Date delivered: 10 October In the matter between: Second Applicant. and. SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE

More information

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT

MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS JUDGMENT MEC: EDUCATION - WESTERN CAPE v STRAUSS FORUM : SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL JUDGE : MALAN AJA CASE NO : 640/06 DATE : 28 NOVEMBER 2007 JUDGMENT Judgement: Malan AJA: [1] This is an appeal with leave of the

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT FREE STATE GAMBLING AND LIQUOR AUTHORITY FREE STATE LIQUOR AND GAMBLING AUTHORITY

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT FREE STATE GAMBLING AND LIQUOR AUTHORITY FREE STATE LIQUOR AND GAMBLING AUTHORITY THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Of interest to other judges Case no: J773/15 In the matter between: FREE STATE GAMBLING AND LIQUOR AUTHORITY Applicant and COMMISSION

More information

Hot Dog Café (Pty) Limited Applicant. Daksesh Rowen s Sizzling Dogs CC First Respondent. Judgment

Hot Dog Café (Pty) Limited Applicant. Daksesh Rowen s Sizzling Dogs CC First Respondent. Judgment In the KwaZulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg Republic of South Africa Case No : 1783/2011 In the matter between : Hot Dog Café (Pty) Limited Applicant and Daksesh Rowen s Sizzling Dogs CC First Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 13342/2015 In the matter between: JEEVAN S PROPERTY INVESTMENT (PTY) LIMITED APPLICANT and REUNION CASH AND CARRY

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED. JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF, JJ A et CILLIé, A J A

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED. JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF, JJ A et CILLIé, A J A IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: PRITCHARD PROPERTIES (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED Appellant AND BASIL KOULIS Respondent Coram: JANSEN, KOTZé, TRENGOVE, BOSHOFF,

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 245/13 ELLERINE BROTHERS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and McCARTHY LIMITED RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Ellerine Bros

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTRN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN HENCETRADE 15 (PTY) LTD TUDOR HOTEL BRASSERIE & BAR (PTY) LTD

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTRN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN HENCETRADE 15 (PTY) LTD TUDOR HOTEL BRASSERIE & BAR (PTY) LTD IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTRN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN Case number: 15275/2015 In the matter between: HENCETRADE 15 (PTY) LTD Applicant And TUDOR HOTEL BRASSERIE & BAR (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff. ANDRé ALROY FILLIS First Defendant. MARILYN ELSA FILLIS Second Defendant JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH Case No.: 1796/10 Date Heard: 3 August 2010 Date Delivered:17 August 2010 In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Plaintiff

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 1155/ 2017 Heard: 7 December 2017 Delivered: 13 March 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH. CASE NO: 1155/ 2017 Heard: 7 December 2017 Delivered: 13 March 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between BUTTCAT BOAT BUILDERS (PTY) LTD NITOFKO (PTY) LTD t/a NAUTI-TECH CASE NO: 1155/ 2017 Heard: 7 December 2017

More information

In the matter between: Case No: 1288/2012. TRANSNET LIMITED First Applicant. LE TAP CC Second Applicant. OCEANS 11 SEAFOODS TAKE OUT CC Respondent

In the matter between: Case No: 1288/2012. TRANSNET LIMITED First Applicant. LE TAP CC Second Applicant. OCEANS 11 SEAFOODS TAKE OUT CC Respondent NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No: 1288/2012 TRANSNET LIMITED First Applicant LE TAP CC Second Applicant And OCEANS 11 SEAFOODS

More information

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD

FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD 1 FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ NO: 021/2005 TECHNOFIN LEASING & FINANCE (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and FRAMESBY HIGH SCHOOL THE MEMBER FOR THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION, EASTERN CAPE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case No. : 2631/2013 JACQUES VLOK Applicant versus SILVER CREST TRADING 154 (PTY) LTD MERCANTILE BANK LTD ENGEN

More information

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG 1 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable In the matter between: Case no: J1812/2016 GOITSEMANG HUMA Applicant and COUNCIL FOR SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH First Respondent MINISTER

More information

INSTALMENT SALE FORFEITURE CLAUSE UNFAIR

INSTALMENT SALE FORFEITURE CLAUSE UNFAIR INSTALMENT SALE FORFEITURE CLAUSE UNFAIR Botha and Another v Rich N.O. and Others (CCT 89/13) [2014] ZACC 11 (17 April 2014) This is an important judgment in which the Constitutional Court held that where

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY] JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL Reportable: YES / NO Circulate to Judges: YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO CASE NR : 1322/2012

More information

[1] The applicants apply on notice of motion for the ejectment of. the respondent from an immovable property owned by them, on the

[1] The applicants apply on notice of motion for the ejectment of. the respondent from an immovable property owned by them, on the REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION CASE NO. 6090/2006 In the matter between: GOPAUL SEWPERSADH ROSHNI DEVI SEWPERSADH SECOND APPLICANT FIRST APPLICANT and SURIAPRAKASH

More information

KINGDOM CATERERS (KZN) (PTY) LTD

KINGDOM CATERERS (KZN) (PTY) LTD IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE NO: 8155/07 In the matter between: KINGDOM CATERERS (KZN) (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE BID APPEALS TRIBUNAL First Respondent THE CHAIRPERSON

More information

IBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC

IBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: 5011/2015 283/2016 Date heard: 02 June 2016 Date delivered: 08 September 2016 In the matter between: IBHUBHEZI POWERLINES CC

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2016/11853 (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED.... DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between

More information

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2009

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 20900/08 In the matter between: ROSSO SPORT AUTO CC Applicant and VIGLIETTI MOTORS (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED

More information

THE REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

THE REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS THE REQUISITIONING AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ACT, 1952 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTIONS 1. Short title, extent and duration. 2. Definitions. 3. Power to requisition immovable property. 4. Power

More information

In the matter between: OLD MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY. TYCOON TRADING ENTEPRISE CC trading as COPPER CHIMNEY RESTAURANT

In the matter between: OLD MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY. TYCOON TRADING ENTEPRISE CC trading as COPPER CHIMNEY RESTAURANT IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: OLD MUTUAL ASSURANCE COMPANY Case No: 13481/2010 Applicant and TYCOON TRADING ENTEPRISE CC trading as COPPER CHIMNEY

More information

In the matter between: Case No: 1683/2015 LA MER JEFFREYS AKKOMMODASIE BK

In the matter between: Case No: 1683/2015 LA MER JEFFREYS AKKOMMODASIE BK REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No: 1683/2015 LA MER JEFFREYS AKKOMMODASIE BK Applicant And FLASHCOR 182 CC First

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 10589/16 MICHAEL ANDREW VAN AS Applicant And NEDBANK LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 26 AUGUST

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: CASE NO: 9234/15 MARTIN BRUCE RENKEN IM A RENT COLLECTOR (PTY) LTD FIRST APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT and

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

More information

JORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643. Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000. Court Eastern Cape Division

JORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643. Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000. Court Eastern Cape Division JORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643 Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000 Court Eastern Cape Division Judge Erasmus J and Sandi AJ Heard March 26, 2001 Judgment

More information

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED

GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 4490/2015 DATE HEARD: 02/03/2017 DATE DELIVERED: 30/03/2017 In the matter between GUTSCHE FAMILY INVESTMENTS (PTY)

More information

BERMUDA RENT INCREASES (DOMESTIC PREMISES) CONTROL ACT : 27

BERMUDA RENT INCREASES (DOMESTIC PREMISES) CONTROL ACT : 27 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA RENT INCREASES (DOMESTIC PREMISES) CONTROL ACT 1978 1978 : 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 PART I INTERPRETATION, ADMINISTRATION AND

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE CIRCUIT COURT, EAST LONDON) REPORTABLE CASE NO. EL881/15 ECD 1681/15 In the matter between: BLUE NIGHTINGALE TRADING 397 (PTY) LTD t/a SIYENZA GROUP Applicant

More information

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus

Through Mr. Atul Nigam, Mr. Amit Tiwari, Advs. versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI SUBJECT : CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE OA 92/2013 & IA Nos. 132/2013, 18787/2012, 218/2013, 1581/2013 in CS(OS) 3081/2012 Reserved on: 29th October, 2013 Decided on:

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006. KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006. KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION REPORTABLE 11974/2006 KRISHENLALL HIRALAL APPLICANT versus LUGASEN NAICKER FIRST RESPONDENT SHANIKA NAICKER SECOND RESPONDENT RESERVED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 16920/2016 THE HABITAT COUNCIL Applicant v THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN CORNELIS ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES N.O. MICHAEL ANDRONIKUS AUGOUSTIDES

More information

(27 November 1998 to date) ALIENATION OF LAND ACT 68 OF 1981

(27 November 1998 to date) ALIENATION OF LAND ACT 68 OF 1981 (27 November 1998 to date) [This is the current version and applies as from 27 November 1998, i.e. the date of commencement of the Alienation of Land Amendment Act 103 of 1998 to date] ALIENATION OF LAND

More information

TWILIGHT BREEZE TRADING 119 CC [Registration number: 2003/065363/23]

TWILIGHT BREEZE TRADING 119 CC [Registration number: 2003/065363/23] .. \ { :' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between:- Case No: 4134/2017

More information

PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THE CRANLEIGH ARTS CENTRE LIMITED ( )

PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THE CRANLEIGH ARTS CENTRE LIMITED ( ) PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE AND NOT HAVING A SHARE CAPITAL ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE THE CRANLEIGH ARTS CENTRE LIMITED (01607633) (As adopted by Special Resolution passed by the Company on

More information

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA

THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT. Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Reportable Case No J1869/15 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SA Applicant and VANACHEM VANADIUM PRODUCTS (PTY) LTD Respondent

More information

AXTON MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CC...Applicant METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

AXTON MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CC...Applicant METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 2778/2011 In the matter between: AXTON MATRIX CONSTRUCTION CC...Applicant and METSIMAHOLO LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Respondent MONDE CONSULTING

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J 392/14 In the matter between KHULULEKILE LAWRENCE MCHUBA Applicant and PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY

More information

ALIENATION OF LAND ACT NO. 68 OF 1981

ALIENATION OF LAND ACT NO. 68 OF 1981 ALIENATION OF LAND ACT NO. 68 OF 1981 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 28 AUGUST, 1981] DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 19 OCTOBER, 1982] (except s. 26 on 6 December, 1983) (English text signed by the State President)

More information

THE PARTIES The applicant is a director of companies having his principal place. of business at Long Ridge Building 53, Ridge Road, Glenhazel,

THE PARTIES The applicant is a director of companies having his principal place. of business at Long Ridge Building 53, Ridge Road, Glenhazel, IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter of: Case Nr.: 3386/2005 BASIL WEINBERG Applicant and PS 2033 INVESTMENTS CC 1 st Respondent CONSTANTINOS RETSINAS

More information

CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA

CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Vivier Adcj, Howie JA and Brand AJA CAPE KILLARNEY PROPERTY INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD v MAHAMBA AND OTHERS 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Citation Case No 495/99 Court Judge 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) Supreme Court of Appeal Heard August 28, 2001 Vivier

More information

Made available by Sabinet REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL

Made available by Sabinet   REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL (As introduced in the National Assembly (proposed section 76); explanatory summary of Bill published in Government Gazette No. 38418 of 26 January 1) (The English

More information

ALIENATION OF LAND ACT 68 OF 1981 i * [ASSENTED TO 28 AUGUST 1981] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 19 OCTOBER 1982] (Except s. 26: 6 December 1983) (English

ALIENATION OF LAND ACT 68 OF 1981 i * [ASSENTED TO 28 AUGUST 1981] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 19 OCTOBER 1982] (Except s. 26: 6 December 1983) (English ALIENATION OF LAND ACT 68 OF 1981 i * [ASSENTED TO 28 AUGUST 1981] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 19 OCTOBER 1982] (Except s. 26: 6 December 1983) (English text signed by the State President) as amended by Alienation

More information

GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered

GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) JUDGMENT. [1] On 13 April 2006 the Director-General of Public Works' (or his delegate) entered IN THE In the matter between GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA UBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case No: 3823/09 ti JSJzoto THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Excipient and KOVAC INVESTMENTS 289 (PTY)

More information

JUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016. In the matter between: SAPOR RENTALS (PTY) LIMITED

JUDGMENT THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016. In the matter between: SAPOR RENTALS (PTY) LIMITED THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 07897/2016 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 23 February 2017.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. THUTHABANTU PROPERTIES C C and SUMMIT WAREHOUSING (PTY) LTD.

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. THUTHABANTU PROPERTIES C C and SUMMIT WAREHOUSING (PTY) LTD. IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CASE NO. 11500/2011 In the matter between: THUTHABANTU PROPERTIES C C and APPLICANT SUMMIT WAREHOUSING (PTY) LTD. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, MTHATHA CASE NO. CA&R 53/2013 REPORTABLE In the matter between: SIPHO ALPHA KONDLO Appellant and EASTERN CAPE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION Respondent JUDGMENT

More information

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)

HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: Electronic publishing. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED...... Case No. 2015/11210 In the matter between:

More information

Applicant ELIT (SA) (PTY) LTD. and. First Respondent STANLEY CHESTER PHEKANI N.0. Second Respondent STANLEY CHESTER PHEKANI

Applicant ELIT (SA) (PTY) LTD. and. First Respondent STANLEY CHESTER PHEKANI N.0. Second Respondent STANLEY CHESTER PHEKANI ' IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: 24535/2017 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE In the matter between: - ELIT (SA) (PTY) LTD Applicant and STANLEY CHESTER

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 2924/09 WHITELEYS CONSTRUCTION Plaintiff and CARLOS NUNES CC Defendant HEARD ON: 3 DECEMBER 2009 JUDGMENT

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 339/09 MEC FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant (EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE) and TEMBA MTOKWANA Respondent Neutral citation: 2010) CORAM: MEC v Mtokwana

More information

and MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE

and MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE Not reportable In the High Court of South Africa (South Eastern Cape Local Division) (Port Elizabeth High Court) Case No 2356/2006 Delivered: In the matter between PETER FRANCE N.O. HILLARY BARRIS N.O.

More information

BUFFALO CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY

BUFFALO CITY METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION) FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION) FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION) Case No: 17622/2008 In the matter between FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED Applicant And PETER JAQUE WAGNER N.O. PETER JAQUE WAGNER First Respondent

More information

Communal Land Reform Act 5 of 2002 (GG 2787) brought into force on 1 March 2003 by GN 33/2003 (GG 2926)

Communal Land Reform Act 5 of 2002 (GG 2787) brought into force on 1 March 2003 by GN 33/2003 (GG 2926) (GG 2787) brought into force on 1 March 2003 by GN 33/2003 (GG 2926) as amended by Communal Land Reform Amendment Act 11 of 2005 (GG 3550) came into force on date of publication: 8 December 2005 Proc.

More information

The plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Juma Musjid Trust, bearing the reference

The plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Juma Musjid Trust, bearing the reference IN HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 7155/2011 AHMED ASRUFF ESSAY, N.O. ABOOBAKER JOOSAB NOOR MAHOMED, N.O. AHMED VALLY MAHOMED, N.O. HAROUN MAHOMED GANIE, N.O. MAHOMED

More information

SP & C CATERING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD. MANUEL JORGE MAIA DA CRUZ First Respondent. CASCAIS RESTAURANT CC Second Respondent

SP & C CATERING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD. MANUEL JORGE MAIA DA CRUZ First Respondent. CASCAIS RESTAURANT CC Second Respondent NOT REPORTABLE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 40746/2010 DATE: 10/11/2010 In the matter between: SP & C CATERING INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Applicant and MANUEL JORGE MAIA DA CRUZ First Respondent

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY Case No: 580/11 Date of Hearing: 27.05.2011 Date Delivered: 17.06.2011 In the matter between: BABEREKI CONSULTING ENGINEERS (PTY) LIMITED

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 14231/14 In the matter between: PETER McHENDRY APPLICANT and WYNAND LOUW GREEFF FIRST RESPONDENT RENSCHE GREEFF SECOND RESPONDENT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN. t/a FNB INSURANCE BROKERS JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN. t/a FNB INSURANCE BROKERS JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, DURBAN In the matter between: FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED CASE NO. 14495/14 t/a FNB INSURANCE BROKERS Applicant and ANILCHUND PRITHIPAL WESTWOOD INSURANCE

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 10083/2012 (1) REPORTABLE: Yes (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3) REVISED... DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter between MONYETLA

More information

LEASE ADDENDUM FOR DRUG-FREE HOUSING. Property Address:

LEASE ADDENDUM FOR DRUG-FREE HOUSING. Property Address: LEASE ADDENDUM FOR DRUG-FREE HOUSING Property Address: In consideration of the execution or renewal of a lease of the dwelling unit identified in the lease, Owner and Resident agree as follows: 1. Resident,

More information

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA

GOVERNMENT GAZETTE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA GOVERNMENT GAZETTE OF THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA N$3.00 WINDHOEK - 9 December 2002 No.2875 CONTENTS GOVERNMENT NOTICE No. 218 Promulgation of Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Amendment Act, 2002 (Act

More information

Housing Development Schemes for Retired Person s Act

Housing Development Schemes for Retired Person s Act Housing Development Schemes for Retired Person s Act - Act 65 of 1988 - HOUSING DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES FOR RETIRED PERSONS ACT 65 OF 1988 [ASSENTED TO 17 JUNE 1988] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 1 JULY 1989] (Afrikaans

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA EXPROPRIATION BILL (As amended by the Select Committee on Economic and Business Development (National Council of Provinces)) (The English text is the offıcial text of the Bill)

More information

IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE?

IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE? IS A HARD-HITTING CONTRACTUAL TERM CONSTITUTIONALLY UNFAIR AND HENCE UNENFORCEABLE? Mohamed's Leisure Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Southern Sun Hotel Interests (Pty) Ltd (183/17) [2017] ZASCA 176 (1 December 2017)

More information

JUDGMENT. This is an exception by the plaintiff to the defendant s plea and counterclaim.

JUDGMENT. This is an exception by the plaintiff to the defendant s plea and counterclaim. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) NOT REPORTABLE Case No.: 6104/07 Date delivered: 16 May 2008 In the matter between: GAY BOOYSEN Plaintiff and GEOFFREY LYSTER WARREN SMITH Defendant

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable In the matter between: Case no: 288/2017 OCEAN ECHO PROPERTIES 327 CC FIRST APPELLANT ANGELO GIANNAROS SECOND APPELLANT and OLD MUTUAL LIFE

More information

IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA. Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd. Companies and Intellectual Property Commission.

IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA. Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd. Companies and Intellectual Property Commission. IN THE COMPANIES TRIBUNAL OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA In the matter between: CASE NO: CT001Mar2016 Safcor Freight (Pty) Ltd Applicant and BPL General Trading (Pty) Ltd Companies and Intellectual Property

More information

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA /ES (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/TTO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YBS i WX (3) REVISED. / IN THE MATTER

More information

SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL MISSISSIPPI'S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW

SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL MISSISSIPPI'S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL 2622 - MISSISSIPPI'S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW Publication SUMMARY OF SENATE BILL 2622 - MISSISSIPPI'S CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW Authors Cable M. Frost, Erno David Lindner March 27, 2014

More information

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LIMITED

IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LIMITED IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. 6675/09 In the matter between: SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and EVERFRESH MARKET VIRGINIA (PTY) LIMITED

More information

In the matter between: PSA obo GABANAKGOSI, M (Union / Applicant) And DEPARTMENT OF WATER & SANITATION, NORTH WEST PROVINCE (Respondent)

In the matter between: PSA obo GABANAKGOSI, M (Union / Applicant) And DEPARTMENT OF WATER & SANITATION, NORTH WEST PROVINCE (Respondent) ARBITRATION AWARD Panellist/s: Annelie Bevan Case No.: PSCB 599-15/16 Date of Award: 1 June 2016 In the matter between: PSA obo GABANAKGOSI, M (Union / Applicant) And DEPARTMENT OF WATER & SANITATION,

More information

Citrus Academy Bursary Agreement

Citrus Academy Bursary Agreement Memorandum of Agreement for Financial Assistance for Tertiary Education between Citrus Academy (Reg. No. CK2007/01230008) (hereinafter referred to as the "Citrus Academy") and Name Identity Number (hereinafter

More information

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality JUDGMENT 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL DIVISION Case nos: EL270/17; ECD970/17 Date heard: 22/6/17 Date delivered: 28/6/17 Not reportable In the matter between: David Barker Applicant

More information

English Lacrosse Association Ltd. Articles of Association

English Lacrosse Association Ltd. Articles of Association English Lacrosse Association Ltd Articles of Association Private Company limited by guarantee INDEX TO THE ARTICLES PART 1 INTERPRETATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY... 1 1. DEFINED TERMS... 1 2. LIABILITY

More information

THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION - of - THE BRITISH BIATHLON UNION ( BBU )

THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE. ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION - of - THE BRITISH BIATHLON UNION ( BBU ) THE COMPANIES ACT 2006 PRIVATE COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION - of - THE BRITISH BIATHLON UNION ( BBU ) For Submission for Adoption at the AGM of the BBU to be held on 1 st February

More information

/SG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

/SG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) 1 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE:

More information

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE TITLE 50 APPENDIX. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE TITLE 50 APPENDIX. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Servicemembers Civil Relief Act TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE TITLE 50 APPENDIX. WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 12/5/2006 3:36:44 PM WKFS CompliSource January 2007 Page:

More information

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL

CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL Case No 70/95 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between SA METAL & MACHINERY CO (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE TOWN IRON & STEEL WORKS (PTY) LTD NATIONAL METAL (PTY)

More information

EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH

EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 1723/07 Heard on: 17/06/11 Delivered on: 02/08/11 In the matter between: STEVE VORSTER First Applicant MATTHYS JOHANNES

More information

CASE NO: 6084/15. In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED. Applicant. and

CASE NO: 6084/15. In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED. Applicant. and Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED CASE NO: 6084/15 Applicant and PERSONS WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE TO THE

More information

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 15493/2014 NICOLENE HANEKOM APPLICANT v LIZETTE VOIGT N.O. LIZETTE VOIGT JANENE GERTRUIDA GOOSEN N.O.

More information

S A TAXI SECURITISATION (PTY) LTD...Applicant (Registration Number 2005/021852/07) SIMA, MXOLISA ANDRIES...Respondent (Identity Number...

S A TAXI SECURITISATION (PTY) LTD...Applicant (Registration Number 2005/021852/07) SIMA, MXOLISA ANDRIES...Respondent (Identity Number... SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG REPORTABLE

More information

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE

Consolidated text PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED. The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE PROJET DE LOI ENTITLED The Arbitration (Guernsey) Law, 2016 * [CONSOLIDATED TEXT] NOTE This consolidated version of the enactment incorporates all amendments listed in the footnote below. It has been prepared

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 498/2017 In the matter between Reportable RED CORAL INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD APPELLANT and CAPE PENINSULA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY RESPONDENT

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application, brought as one of urgency, to set aside the order

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an application, brought as one of urgency, to set aside the order IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO: 3092/2015 DATE HEARD: 01/09/2015 DATE DELIVERED: 10/09/2015 In the matter between SYNTEC GLOBAL INCORPORATED LIVE

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 997/2008 K E MONYE APPLICANT and S SMIT RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. [1] On 29 th April 2008 the Applicant

More information

JUDGMENT PHATUDI, J IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 CASE NO: 44572/2009.

JUDGMENT PHATUDI, J IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 CASE NO: 44572/2009. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH AND SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA) DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2010 CASE NO: 44572/2009 MARLOW PROJECTS CC PLAINTIFF And CAREL SEBASTIAAN JANSER VAN RENSBURG 1 s

More information

WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES

WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES APPENDIX 3.17 WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES (as from 1 October 2002) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Abbreviated Expressions Article 1 In these Rules: Arbitration Agreement means

More information

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case No. : 174/2011 L C FOURIE t/a LC FOURIE BOERDERY Plaintiff and JOHANNES CHRISTIAAN KOTZé N.O. GRAHAM CHRISTIAAN

More information

THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR...Applicant. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED...Respondent JUDGMENT

THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR...Applicant. THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED...Respondent JUDGMENT REPORTABLE IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE No: 40475/2010 DATE:25/10/2011 In the matter between: THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR...Applicant and THE STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED...Respondent

More information