ECD1256/2012 Date heard: 9 May 2013 Date delivered: 10 May 2013
|
|
- Frederick Fowler
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) Case no: EL556/2012 ECD1256/2012 Date heard: 9 May 2013 Date delivered: 10 May 2013 In the matter between KEVIN GLYNN ROUX and ELIZABETH JOHANNA VAN NIEROP in their capacities as partners of KEVIN ROUX PROPERTIES Applicant vs MAGNOLIA RIDGE PROPERTIES 197 (PTY) LIMITED ZAMBLI 216 (PTY) LIMITED First Respondent Second Respondent JUDGMENT PICKERING J: On 8 February 2013 applicant, a partnership trading as an Estate Agency under the name and style of Kevin Roux Properties in East London, launched this application in the East London Circuit Local Division citing as respondents Magnolia Ridge Properties 197 (Pty) Ltd, first respondent, and Zambli 216 (Pty) Ltd, second respondent. The matter was originally set down for hearing in East London on 7 May 2013 but, by agreement between the parties, was transferred for hearing on 9 May 2013 to this Court. In its Notice of Motion applicant seeks, inter alia, the following relief: 1. That first respondent is ordered to retain in the Trust account of its attorneys of record, Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc., the sum of R ,00 pending the finalisation of the action instituted by applicants, as plaintiff, under Case no EL 556/2012 ECD1256/2012 out of the above Honourable Court against first respondent as defendant. 3. That first respondent pay the costs of this application.
2 2 The action referred to in paragraph 1 of the Notice of Motion is for payment of a commission in the sum of R ,00 allegedly owing to applicant arising out of the sale of first respondent s property to second respondent for the purchase price of R ,00. It is common cause that first respondent was established with the sole purpose of acquiring the property in question and thereafter disposing of it for a profit and the benefit of shareholders. It is further common cause that first respondent was used as a so-called one-off investment vehicle which, once the property in question, its only asset, had been disposed of and the nett proceeds distributed to the shareholders, would be wound up. On 4 May 2012 applicant s attorneys addressed a letter (KRP9) to first respondent s attorneys advising them that applicant had become aware of the pending transfer of the property to second respondent; that applicant was entitled to commission in the sum of R1 million plus VAT but that no provision had been made in the agreement of sale between first and second respondents for payment thereof to applicant; and seeking an undertaking from first respondent that the amount of R1 million plus VAT would be retained in first respondent s attorneys trust account pending the outcome of the action which applicant intended to institute against first respondent for payment of the said commission. On 7 May 2012 first respondent s attorneys replied as follows (KRP10): We have been instructed by our client to inform you that we are to withhold R ,00 plus VAT from the purchase price received on transfer, pending the resolution of your client s claim for commission for a period not exceeding 12 months from date of transfer or such extended period as may be mutually agreed upon by your clients and our clients.
3 3 The action was duly instituted in the East London Circuit Local Division on 13 June When it became clear that the action would not be finalised by 10 May 2013, namely 12 months after the date of the undertaking given by first respondent, applicant sought, on 27 November 2012, an extension of the 12 month period stipulated by first respondent. In response thereto, in an (KRP11) dated 30 November 2012, first respondent s attorneys replied raising certain queries, inter alia, as to the basis upon which applicant contended it was entitled to require first respondent to continue to hold the funds in trust and stating that in the event of the funds having been released after 10 May 2013 applicant would in any event have suitable alternative remedies should it eventually be successful in its action. Applicant construed this reply as being a refusal to agree to an extension of the period of the undertaking and accordingly did not reply thereto. For its part, first respondent took the view that in the light of applicant s non-response to its letter it was not prepared to grant any further extension. Applicant accordingly launched the present application which had the obvious purpose of preventing the dissipation of the last of first respondent s assets pending the finalisation of the action. That action has since been set down for trial in 7 months time on 9 December 2013 in the East London Circuit Local Division. The application is opposed only by first respondent. It is common cause that applicant seeks a Mareva-type interdict. This form of interdictory relief has been described in Knox D Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others 1996 (4) SA 348 (A) at 373D as an interdict sui generis. At 372B-C the following was stated: The interdict prevents the respondent from dealing freely with his assets but grants the applicant no preferential rights over those assets. And anti-dissipation suffers from the defect that in most cases and, certainly in the present case, the interdict is not sought to prevent the
4 4 respondent from dissipating his assets, but rather from preserving them so well that the applicant cannot get his hands on them. Having criticised the names used for the interdict I find myself unfortunately unable to suggest a better one. I console myself with the thought that our law has recognised this type of interdict for many years without giving it any specific name. See too Johannes Petrus Oosthuizen t/a Home Builders v Dai Nippon Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another [2007] 1 All SA 610 (T). As was pointed out in Erasmus: Superior Court Practice at E8 6B B1 an interdict of this nature can have a devastating effect on the affairs of the respondent and also has a huge potential for abuse. In Knox D Arcy supra the following was stated at 372G I: The question which arises from this approach is whether an applicant need show a particular state of mind on the part of the respondent, ie that he is getting rid of the funds, or is likely to do so, with the intention of defeating the claims of creditors. Having regard to the purpose of this type of interdict, the answer must be, I consider, yes, except possibly in exceptional cases. As I have said, the effect of the interdict is to prevent the respondent from freely dealing with his own property to which the applicant lays no claim. Justice may require this restriction in cases where the respondent is shown to be acting mala fide with the intent of preventing execution in respect of the applicant s claim. However, there would not normally be any justification to compel a respondent to regulate his bona fide expenditure so as to retain funds in his patrimony for the payment of claims (particularly disputed ones) against him. The requirements of the relief sought are those of an interim interdict together with the further requirement that it be demonstrated that first respondent is
5 5 about to, or likely to dissipate its assets with the intention of defeating applicant s claim. In Eriksen Motors Ltd v Protea Motors and Another 1973 (3) SA 685 (AD) Holmes JA stated as follows at 691C G: The granting of an interim interdict pending an action is an extraordinary remedy within the discretion of the Court. Where the right which it is sought to protect is not clear, the Court s approach in the matter of an interim interdict was lucidly laid down by INNES, J.A., in Setlogelo v Setlogelo, 1914 A.D. 221 at p In general the requisites are (a) (b) (c) a right which, though prima facie established, is open to some doubt ; a well grounded apprehension of irreparable injury; the absence of ordinary remedy. In exercising its discretion the Court weighs, inter alia, the prejudice to the applicant, if the interdict is withheld, against the prejudice to the respondent if it is granted. This is sometimes called the balance of convenience. The foregoing considerations are not individually decisive, but are interrelated; for example, the stronger the applicant s prospects of success the less his need to rely on prejudice to himself. Conversely, the more the element of some doubt, the greater the need for the other factors to favour him. The Court considers the affidavits as a whole, and the interrelation of the foregoing considerations, according to the facts and probabilities; see Olympic Passenger Service (Pty.) Ltd. v. Ramlagan, 1957 (2) S.A. 382 (D) at p. 383D-G. Viewed in that light, the reference to a right which, though prima facie established, is open to some doubt is apt, flexible and practical, and needs no further elaboration.
6 6 I turn then to consider whether applicant has satisfied the requirements for the granting of the relief sought by it. Although the papers are voluminous the relevant facts, it seems to me, may be set out reasonably succinctly. Applicant avers that during or about August or September 2009 it was given an oral mandate by first respondent to find a purchaser for its aforementioned property. According to applicant it was an implied term of the mandate that applicant would be paid a commission equal to the generally acceptable rate of commission payable in consequence of sales of properties of similar nature to that of first respondent. Applicant contends that it did find a prospective purchaser in the form of second respondent and that this is confirmed in an (KRP13) dated 2 September 2009, being part of certain correspondence between persons in authority of the affairs of Business Parties Limited, a shareholder of first respondent, namely Colin Victor and Owen Holland wherein the following is stated: Kevin (applicant) has a buyer for Magnolia at R50 M who is prepared to include a non-refundable deposit in the offer. Please send me an Offer to Purchase doc we can use which you are happy with... Kevin can use this as a base I have modified our offer. Clause 9.2 must be altered other than the dates. Hopefully you can use this. On the same date Colin Victor sent to applicant a document headed Offer to Purchase (KRP14) this obviously being the draft Offer to purchase doc referred to in the (KRP13). On clause 9 thereof the following appears: Name of agency: Kevin Roux Amount/Rate of commission: R ,00 Payable by: Seller
7 7 Thereafter, an Offer to Purchase (KRP1) signed by second respondent on 21 October 2011, was submitted by second respondent to first respondent. In terms thereof the amount/rate of commission payable by first respondent to Kevin Roux/Smada Investments was to be 3% plus VAT. The offer was not accepted by first respondent. An Option Agreement (KRP2) in respect of the said property was thereafter prepared by first respondent s attorneys and signed on or behalf of first respondent on 15 November Clause 9 thereof records that a commission of R ,00 plus VAT would be payable by first respondent to Kevin Roux/Smada Investments. A further Option Agreement (KRP3) prepared by first respondent s attorneys and signed by first respondent on 18 November 2010, provided similarly for payment of a commission by first respondent to Kevin Roux/Smada Investments in the sum of R ,00 plus VAT. This was followed by yet another Option Agreement (KRP4) signed by second respondent on 31 January and first respondent on 1 February 2011, again recording an obligation by first respondent to pay commission to Kevin Roux/Smada Investments in the sum of R ,00 plus VAT. Thereafter a sale was ultimately concluded between first and second respondents in respect of the property during November In terms of the Deed of Sale (KRP5) the purchase price was the sum of R ,00. Clause 9 thereof recorded as follows: The Purchaser warrants that no commission is payable to any estate agent, including Kevin Roux Properties, in respect of the sale and transfer and indemnifies the Seller against any claims for commission by any estate agent or trader. In the event of any claim being made upon the Seller for commission, then the Purchaser shall be obliged to settle or defend same and indemnify the Seller against the claim and costs of defence as required by the Seller from time to time.
8 8 The property was transferred to second respondent during May Applicant avers, in its particulars of claim, that it performed its obligations in terms of first respondent s mandate to it and that it was the effective cause of the successful sale by first respondent of the property to second respondent. It avers accordingly that first respondent became liable to pay to applicant the sum of R ,00 plus VAT as commission. First respondent denies, both in its plea in the main action and in its answering affidavit, that it entered into any agreement of mandate with applicant. It contends that if applicant entered into any such agreement with regard to the sale of the property then such agreement was entered into by applicant with second respondent. It points out that there is what it terms a glaring contradiction between the averments contained in the particulars of claim and in the applicant s founding affidavit as to the date upon which the alleged mandate agreement was entered into. Whereas in the founding affidavit applicant states that the agreement was entered into during August/September 2009, the particulars of claim allege that the agreement was entered into during January First respondent states that it would appear in the circumstances that applicant has abandoned reliance upon the alleged oral agreements which are specifically pleaded in its particular of claim. In reply hereto applicant states that the reference in the particulars of claim to January 2011 was erroneous and that an application would be made in due course to amend its particulars of claim to reflect the correct date as being August/September In this regard Mr. Cole, who appeared for first respondent, submitted that as things stand and before any amendments to the pleadings are effected, the applicant has no existing claim against first respondent based on an alleged agreement of mandate entered into during August/September 2009 and that in the circumstances applicant has made out no prima facie case whatsoever. I disagree. As set out above applicant contends that the reference in the particulars of claim to January 2011 is erroneous. This averment is made
9 9 under oath as opposed to the averments contained in the particulars of claim. If in due course an application to amend the particulars of claim is granted any validity Mr. Cole s submission might have had would fall away. In these circumstances it would, in my view, constitute a grave injustice to applicant to find, at this stage, on the basis of this submission and prior to the application to amend being heard, that applicant has not made out a prima facie case. Mr. Cole submitted further that in any event there was nothing in the above correspondence which justified the conclusion that applicant had entered into an agreement of mandate with first respondent. He pointed out that first respondent has denied that the aforementioned Colin Victor was ever authorised to represent it and submitted that, as a matter of law, Mr. Victor, as a shareholder, had no authority to bind first respondent even if he did enter into any agreement with applicant. He submitted that it was clear from the correspondence that applicant had approached the aforementioned Business Partners Limited with an indication that it had a buyer who was interested in first respondent s property and had requested that Business Partners Limited provide a template Offer to Purchase. That Offer to Purchase, as consequentially amended, was submitted, not to Business Partners Limited, but to the first respondent as an unsolicited Offer to Purchase. Mr. Cole addressed further submissions with regard to the conflicting amounts of commission alleged to be payable to applicant and to reference to Smada Investments contained in the various documents. In the result, so Mr. Cole submitted, applicant had provided no basis whatsoever for its allegations. In my view, on an application of the well known principles applicable, set out in Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W) at 1180 as qualified in Gool v Minister of Justice 1955 (2) SA 682 (C) at 688 E, these submissions cannot be sustained. It must be borne in mind that applicant relies upon an alleged oral agreement of mandate. As was submitted by Mr. De la Harpe, who appeared for applicant, it is plain, having regard to the documentation, that there is more than a mere allegation by applicant of the existence of the oral mandate. The
10 10 documentation, whilst obviously by itself not establishing the granting of the mandate, lends a degree of credence at this stage to the averments of the applicant as set out in the particulars of claim. In particular the fact that the documents prepared by first respondent s attorneys make reference to applicant being entitled to commission is relevant, whatever first respondent s explanation for this may be. Whilst a different view as to the weight, if any, to be attached to the documentation may be taken at the trial, when the issue is fully ventilated during the course of oral testimony, I cannot, on these papers, disregard it as Mr. Cole submitted I should. In my view therefore applicant has indeed established a prima facie right, albeit open to some doubt. The next issue is whether applicant has a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm. In paragraph 33 of applicant s founding affidavit the following is stated: I had always understood that first respondent was established with the sole purpose of acquiring the property, earning an income from it and thereafter disposing of it for a profit and the benefit of shareholders. I have been reliably informed, and verily believe, that first respondent was used as a one off investment vehicle and in these circumstances, when it has disposed of its only asset, it is to be expected that all the nett proceeds would be distributed to shareholders and first respondent wound up. First respondent s response thereto is as follows: This is admitted. It is respectfully submitted that this does not mean that the applicant does not have recourse or remedies in order to ensure that it receives payment should it be successful in its action
11 11 against the first respondent. The respondent is merely attempting to obtain security for its claim utilising the interim interdict process, which it is not entitled to do. The Shareholders of the first respondent are all persons of substance and substantial means. It is common cause that first respondent has disbursed all but the sum of R1 million plus VAT which is presently being held in the trust account of its attorneys. In the abovementioned (KRP11) of 30 November first respondent stated, inter alia, the following: Has your client taken into consideration, the fact that our client has its normal commercial financial obligations, including payment to the South African Revenue Services and certain creditors, to meet on an ongoing basis and payments to shareholders? The balance of convenience therefore certainly favours our client. With regard to this applicant states that it cannot accept that first respondent did not have sufficient funds available out of the sale of the property to make payment of its commercial obligations and tax. It states that in the circumstances it can only be that what is wanted is that it distribute the remaining one million to its shareholders and as much is stated. Applicant therefore challenges first respondent to set out fully its dealings with the purchase price and to detail what creditors and tax obligations it still has outstanding. First respondent, however, did not accept this challenge, merely contenting itself with the averment that it is a fact that first respondent has ongoing expenses and taxes to meet. The first respondent is entitled to utilise the funds available to it in order to meet these expenses. I agree with the submission by Mr. De la Harpe that this is no answer at all. It would have been a simple matter for first respondent to have detailed those expenses and taxes, if they existed. It is, moreover, in my view, quite improbable that a company in first respondent s position, which has agreed to
12 12 hold the sum of R1 million plus VAT in trust for a period of at least one year, and possibly longer, would not have made provision for payment of any future expenses and taxes out of the remaining balance of the purchase price. According to first respondent these expenses are ongoing. If so, it may be asked how first respondent has managed to meet those expenses over the period of the past year. In my view, the only plausible inference to be drawn is that first respondent does not in fact require the money for expenses and taxes but that, as it impliedly admits, it intends upon expiry of the undertaking, to disburse the money and to make further distributions by way of dividends to its shareholders. In the event of the monies being so disbursed first respondent will be left as a hollow shell with no assets whatsoever. In my view the only plausible inference to be drawn from this is that it wishes to defeat applicant s claim against it. Mr. Cole, however, has contended that applicant will not be left remediless in the event of the money being disbursed by first respondent. He submitted that applicant could proceed against first respondent s shareholders who, it is alleged, are all persons of substance and substantial means. He was, however, unable to enlighten me as to what remedy in law existed such as to enable applicant to recover monies directly from first respondent s shareholders in the event of its claim against first respondent succeeding and, in my view, Mr. De la Harpe is correct in his submission that no such remedy exists. It would appear that, in the event of first respondent becoming an empty shell, applicant s only remedy would be to seek first respondent s liquidation and then to pursue whatever remedies it might have in terms of sections 29, 30 and 31 of the Insolvency Act no 24 of This is of little comfort to applicant. As was submitted by Mr. De la Harpe, none of these remedies are necessarily viable and might result in a time-consuming exercise in futility. Nor, in my view, are the provisions of sections 4, 46 and 218 of the Companies Act, No 71 of 2008, relied upon by Mr. Cole, of assistance to first
13 13 respondent. Having regard to plaintiff s claim it is clear, in my view, that should first respondent distribute the said amount by way of the payment of dividends to its shareholders it would inevitably fail to satisfy the solvency and liquidity test referred to in sections 4 and 46 immediately after completing the proposed distribution. It must also be borne in mind that first respondent has no obligation whatsoever to distribute the last of its assets to its shareholders. I am satisfied therefore that applicant has demonstrated a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm in the event of the interdict not being granted. This aspect of the matter is closely tied up with the issue as to whether or not applicant has an alternative satisfactory remedy. I am satisfied for the reasons set out above that, even if applicant does have an alternative remedy of sorts, that remedy is far from being satisfactory. I turn then to consider the issue of the balance of convenience. It is useful to set out in full the passage at 383 D G in Olympic Passenger Service (Pty) Ltd v Ramlagan supra referred to in Eriksen s case supra: It thus appears that where the applicant s right is clear, and the other requisites are present, no difficulty presents itself about granting an interdict. At the other end of the scale, where his prospects of ultimate success are nil, obviously the Court will refuse an interdict. Between those two extremes fall the intermediate cases in which, on the papers as a whole, the applicants prospects of ultimate success may range all the way from strong to weak. The expression prima facie established though open to some doubt seems to me a brilliantly apt classification of these cases. In such cases, upon proof of a well grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, and there being no adequate ordinary remedy, the Court may grant an interdict it has a discretion, to be exercised judicially upon a consideration of all the facts. Usually this will resolve itself into a nice consideration of the prospects of
14 14 success and the balance of convenience the stronger the prospects of success, the less need for such balance to favour the applicant: the weaker the prospects of success, the greater the need for the balance of convenience to favour him. I need hardly add that by balance of convenience is meant the prejudice to the applicant if the interdict be refused, weighed against the prejudice to the respondent if it be granted. Mr. Cole stressed that, because of the devastating effect that an interdict such as presently sought can have and because of the huge potential for abuse, the balance of convenience had to be very carefully weighed. In this regard he submitted that applicant s prospects of success in the main action were at best remote and that accordingly applicant was obliged to establish clearly that the balance of convenience favoured it. He submitted that, on the contrary, the balance of convenience favoured first respondent inasmuch as its funds, which it required for its ongoing business operations, had been tied up for a year. I have dealt above with first respondent s failure to furnish any detail as to its ongoing expenses and the fact that first respondent, in order not to delay the transfer of the property to second respondent, had been prepared to furnish the undertaking for a period of at least one year. Nothing that first respondent has placed before me has persuaded me that its circumstances have changed to such an extent that it, as opposed to its shareholders, would be unduly prejudiced should the interdict be granted. It is clear, however, that applicant would be severely prejudiced should the interdict not be granted and should it eventually succeed in its claim. This is not a case, in my view where, by granting the relief sought, the Court would be compelling first respondent to regulate its expenditure so as to retain funds in its patrimony for the payment of applicant s claim against it. Rather, the Court would be preventing first respondent from disbursing its only remaining asset with the aim of defeating applicant s claim against it. The application must therefore succeed.
15 15 The following order will issue: 1. First respondent is ordered to retain in the Trust account of its attorneys of record, Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc., the sum of R ,00 pending the finalisation of the action instituted by applicant, as plaintiff, under Case no EL 556/2012, ECD1256/2012 out of the above Honourable Court against first respondent as defendant. 2. First respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application. J.D. PICKERING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Appearing on behalf of Applicant: Adv. Cole Instructed by: Bax Kaplan Inc.: Mr. Moolman Appearing on behalf of First Respondent: Adv. De la Harpe Instructed by: Cooper Conroy Bell & Richards Inc.: G.S. Bell
NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO DURBAN SOUTH THIRD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT. 1] The applicant approached this court on the basis of urgency, ex-parte
1 IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN NOT REPORTABLE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case no. 6094/10 In the matter between: NSIKAYOMUZI GOODMAN GOQO PLAINTIFF and JOHANNES GEORGE KRUGER N.O. DALES BROTHERS
More informationB. B. Applicant. J. S. B. Respondent JUDGMENT. [1] This is the return day of a rule nisi obtained by the applicant on an urgent
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 LOCAL
More informationIN 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: PIETER FREIRICH GERHARUS CROTS and HANNES MULLER VOERKRAAL COLEEN SEVENSTER N.O. HENNIE SEVENSTER N.O. JAN DIRK
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. AAA INVESTMENTS PROPRIETARY LIMITED Applicant. PETER MARK HUGO NO First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NOT REPORTABLE EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN Case No.: 2088/10 & 2089/10 Date Heard: 19 August 2010 Date Delivered:16 September 2010 In the matters between: AAA INVESTMENTS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE Case No: 1601/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON Applicant and SAHRON DAMON BFP ATTORNEYS THE
More information(EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 812/2012 In the matter between: CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC t/a CLIMAX CONCRETE PRODUCTS CC Registration Number CK 1985/014313/23
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between: Case No.: 3048/2015 STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Plaintiff And JOROY 0004 CC t/a UBUNTU PROCUREM 1 st
More informationNCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG)
1 of 6 2012/11/06 03:08 PM NCUBE v DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) 2010 (6) SA p166 Citation 2010 (6) SA 166 (ECG) Case No 41/2009 Court Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
More informationJUDGMENT- LEAVE TO EXECUTE
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2010/22522 DATE:19/09/2011 REPORTABLE In the matter between: PELLOW N.O. ALLAN DAVID 1 st Applicant KOKA N.O. JERRY SEKETE 2 nd Applicant INVESTEC BANK LTD
More informationNOMZINGSI PRINCESS MNYIPIZA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA CASE NO. 468/2014 In the matter between: STANDARD BANK SA LTD Applicant And NOMZINGSI PRINCESS MNYIPIZA Respondent JUDGMENT GRIFFITHS,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
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: Appeal number: A1/2016
More information3. The respondent s decision in terms whereof the first applicant was. review that is to be filed by the applicants within 30 (thirty) days from
2 3. The respondent s decision in terms whereof the first applicant was administratively discharged on 30 November 2009, is set aside and suspended, pending the institution and finalisation of an application
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 4826/2014 FIRSTRAND FINANCE COMPANY Applicant and EMERALD VAN ZYL Respondent
More informationSOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case no: J 420/08 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN MUNICIPAL Applicant WORKERS UNION And NORTH WEST HOUSING CORPORATION 1 st Respondent MEC
More informationThe first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the. terms of the laws of the Republic of South Africa.
2 Introduction 1. This matter came to court by way of action. The first plaintiff is a businessman who was acting as an agent of the second, third and fourth plaintiffs who are all companies registered
More informationMOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No.: 2289/2013 MOLEFI THOABALA INCORPORATED Applicant and MANGAUNG METROPOLITAN First Respondent MUNICIPALITY THE
More informationBuffalo 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- R P JANSEN VAN VUUREN Case No: 703/2012 Plaintiff and H C REINECKE Defendant JUDGMENT BY: VAN DER MERWE, J HEARD
More informationBANDILE KASHE, in his capacity as the Executor for the Estate Late W.M. M., Reference No: 2114/2007 JUDGMENT
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 EAST LONDON
More informationEASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES JUDGMENT. 1] This is an application to have the respondent s name struck off the roll
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: 2232/2011 Date heard: 23 March 2012 Date delivered: 20 August 2012 EASTERN CAPE SOCIETY OF ADVOCATES Applicant
More informationIN 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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationFREE 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 12189/2014 ABSA BANK LIMITED Applicant And RUTH SUSAN HAREMZA Respondent
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
1 IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) Case Number: 31971/2011 Coram: Molefe J Heard: 21 July 2014 Delivered: 11 September 2014 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 447/2009. CHERANGANI TRADE & INVEST 113 (PTY) LTD t/a BROCOR ROBBIE IANNONE
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 447/2009 In the matter between: CHERANGANI TRADE & INVEST 113 (PTY) LTD t/a BROCOR Applicant and ROBBIE IANNONE 1 st Respondent (In
More informationApplication for Credit Facility
Head Office Cape Town East London Gauteng Nelspruit Port Elizabeth Bloemfontein 91 Escom Road Unit 1 28 Smartt Road Unit 1 38A Murray Street 15 Saunton Road 113 Zastron Str New Germany, 3610 7 Gold Street
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
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 Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 3659/98. In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA. Applicant. and
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Case Number: J 3659/98 In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF METALWORKERS OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant and NISSAN SOUTH AFRICA MANUFACTURING (PTY)
More informationSUPPLY AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE (INFLIGHT SERVICES) SELLER IS ADVISED TO READ THESE TERMS & CONDITIONS CAREFULLY
SUPPLY AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE (INFLIGHT SERVICES) SELLER IS ADVISED TO READ THESE TERMS & CONDITIONS CAREFULLY THIS SUPPLY AGREEMENT (the Agreement ) is made on the applicable dates
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicants herein had earlier approached this Court for an order, inter
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: ANTHONY LAURISTON BIGGS RIDGE FARM CC Case no: 3323/2013 Date heard: 6.3.2014 Date
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAHIKENG CASE NO. 100/2014 In the matter between: SCHALK VISSER PLAINTIFF and PEWTER STAR INVESTMENTS CC 1 ST DEFENDANT SUSANNA MARGARETHA WEISS
More informationJUDGMENT 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 informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG Reportable CASE NO: J20/2010 In the matter between: MOHLOPI PHILLEMON MAPULANE Applicant and MADIBENG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent ADV VAN
More informationTHE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO. 1225/12 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: SASOL POLYMERS, a division of SASOL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED Applicant and SOUTHERN AMBITION
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1052/2013 2970/2013 CASH CRUSADERS FRANCHISING (PTY) LTD Applicant v LUVHOMBA
More informationIN 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 informationJUDGMENT: 8 NOVEMBER [1] This is an application by the Defendant to permit the joinder of Dr. Smith (the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No: 21453/10 In the matter between: MICHAEL DAVID VAN DEN HEEVER In his representative capacity on behalf of Pierre van den Heever
More informationJ J LAZENBY t/a LAZENBY TRANSPORT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1246/06 In the matter between:- J J LAZENBY t/a LAZENBY TRANSPORT Plaintiff versus M SAAYMAN N.O. Defendant CORAM: H.M. MUSI,
More informationABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) Case No.: 8850/2011 In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED Plaintiff and ROBERT DOUGLAS MARSHALL GAVIN JOHN WHITEFORD N.O. GLORIA
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT STAMFORD SALES & DISTRIBUTION (PTY) LIMITED METRACLARK (PTY) LIMITED
In the matter between: THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 676/2013 STAMFORD SALES & DISTRIBUTION (PTY) LIMITED APPELLANT and METRACLARK (PTY) LIMITED RESPONDENT Neutral
More informationTHIS CONSTITUTES AN APPLICATION TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TRADING DIVISION OF ALLIED CHEMICAL & STEEL MOZAMBIQUE LDA
THIS CONSTITUTES AN APPLICATION TO DO BUSINESS WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING TRADING DIVISION OF ALLIED CHEMICAL & STEEL MOZAMBIQUE LDA APPLICATION FOR CREDIT 1. Registered Name of Applicant/Business Entity
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Circulate to Magistrates: Yes / No Reportable: Yes / No Circulate to Judges: Yes / No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Northern Cape Division) Date heard: 2005 11 25 Date delivered: 2005 12 02 Case no:
More informationDEED OF SURETYSHIP. in favour of INTERMEDIARIES GUARANTEE FACILITY LIMITED. Surety in solidum for and co-principal debtor with
Page 1 of 8 DEED OF SURETYSHIP By in favour of INTERMEDIARIES GUARANTEE FACILITY LIMITED Surety in solidum for and co-principal debtor with Page 2 of 8 DEED OF SURETYSHIP WHEREAS 1. Regulation 4 issued
More informationMEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT
MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT THIS MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT ( Memorandum ) is made on BETWEEN: (1) KGI SECURITIES (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., a company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore and having its registered
More informationEXTRACTS FROM CASES ON MAREVA INJUNCTIONS ALSO KNOW AS ANTI-DISSIPATIONS ORDERS
EXTRACTS FROM CASES ON MAREVA INJUNCTIONS ALSO KNOW AS ANTI-DISSIPATIONS ORDERS We are often asked whether a client can obtain an Order from the High Court to prevent a debtor from selling or disposing
More informationTERMS AND CONDITIONS. BACKGROUND: These Terms and Conditions shall apply to the provision of cleaning services by Cambridge Doms to clients.
Page 1 of 13 TERMS AND CONDITIONS BACKGROUND: These Terms and Conditions shall apply to the provision of cleaning services by Doms to clients. 1. Definitions and Interpretation 1.1 In these Terms and Conditions,
More information1] The applicant on 30 May 2002 applied for an order. winding up the respondent provisionally on the basis. that it is unable to pay its debts.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 4634/02 In the matter between: COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (PTY) LTD Applicant And TECHNOBURN (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT:
More informationGAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 28070/2015 ( 1) REPORT ABLE: YES (2) OF INTEREST TO OT (3) REVISED. ~J.0.Jrq l?.. DATE SIGNATURE In the matter between: JILLIAN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007. In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 1386/2007 In the matter between:- OOSTHUYSEN BEATRIX OOSTHUYSEN YOLANDE First Applicant Second Applicant versus OOSTHUYSEN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between Case No: 5277/2014 PIETER WILLEM DU PLOOY APPLICANT and OOS VRYSTAAT KAAP BEDRYF BEPERK RESPONDENT CORAM: NAIDOO,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 64309/2009 Date: 10 May 2013 In the matter between: WATERKLOOF MARINA ESTATES (PTY) LTD...Plaintiff and CHARTER DEVELOPMENT (PTY)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) JUDGMENT
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: 1 YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBELEY) Case No: 183/2013 HEARD ON: 26/08/2014 DELIVERED:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND In the matter between: JUDGMENT Civil Case 1876/2010 KHANYISILE JUDITH DLAMINI Plaintiff And WEBSTER LUKHELE Defendant Neutral citation: Khanyisile Judith Dlamini vs Webster
More information[FUNCTIONING AS MPUMALANGA CIRCUIT COURT, MBOMBELA]
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, GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationNot reportable Not of interest to other Judges. First Applicant. Second Applicant. and. First Respondent. Second Respondent.
,. HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Not reportable Not of interest to other Judges CASE NO: 61163/2017 THE SPAR GROUP LIMITED THE SP AR GUILD OF SOUTHERN AFRICA NPC First Applicant
More informationRepublic 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 informationEASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA CASE NO 3642/2015 In the matter between: MINISTER OF POLICE, LIBODE STATION COMMISSIONER 1 st Applicant 2 nd Defendant And REFORMED
More informationTHE PEKAY GROUP (PTY) LTD
THE PEKAY GROUP (PTY) LTD REG. NO. 1959/000823/07 incorporating 24 FULTON STREET, INDUSTRIA WEST, JOHANNESBURG P.O. BOX 43116, INDUSTRIA, 2042 : 011-3091500 FAX: 011-4748170 e-mail: infojhb@pekaygroup.co.za
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) CASE NO: 10310/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: BRENT DERECK JOHNSON LOUISE HENRIKSON EGEDAL-JOHNSON SAMUEL BARRY EGEDAL-JOHNSON CASE NO: 10310/2014 1 st Applicant
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND
THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND Civil Case No.1038/04 In the matter between: METRO CASH AND CARRY (PTY) LTD t/a MANZINI LIQUOR WAREHOUSE Plaintiff AND ENYAKATFO INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD t/a BEMVELO BOTTLE STORE
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED 08 SEPTEMBER 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Reportable Case no. 6802/2013 In the matter between: JOHAN DURR Excipient /Plaintiff and LE NOE NEELS BARNARDT CHARLES DICKINSON First
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 30320/13 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 25 July 2014 EJ Francis In the matter between:
More informationSTANDARD TRADING TERMS for the SUPPLY OF GOODS OR SERVICES to SAFCOR FREIGHT (PTY) LTD trading as BIDVEST PANALPINA LOGISTICS
STANDARD TRADING TERMS for the SUPPLY OF GOODS OR SERVICES to SAFCOR FREIGHT (PTY) LTD trading as BIDVEST PANALPINA LOGISTICS 1. Definitions In these Conditions the words set out hereunder shall have the
More informationIn the High Court of South Africa. Uransvaal Provincial Division]
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: Y5S/NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: y=s/no. (3) REVISED. T- ^ rl&tm DATE SIGNATURE In the High Court of South Africa Uransvaal Provincial Division]
More informationIN 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 informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd
JUDGMENT REPUBLIC OF SOUTHAFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Reportable Case No: J1333/12 In the matter between: Staar Surgical (Pty) Ltd Applicant and Julia Lodder Respondent Heard:
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationINDIVIDUAL DEED OF SURETYSHIP
INDIVIDUAL DEED OF SURETYSHIP CUSTOMER:. SURETY:. Franke South Africa Pty Ltd Individual Deed of Suretyship Page 2 of 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS No. Clause Heading Page SCHEDULE... 2 1. SURETYSHIP... 2 2. WARRANTIES
More informationPOTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 11711/2014 POTPALE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff And NKANYISO PHUMLANI MKHIZE Defendant
More informationTelecom Equipment Hosting and Marketing Activities Agreement for the poa! Wireless Internet Connectivity Service
23 rd October 2017 Telecom Equipment Hosting and Marketing Activities Agreement for the poa! Wireless Internet Connectivity Service poa! Internet (the "Service") is a wireless internet connectivity service
More informationAIC CONTRACT NOTE FOR FERTILISERS Issued by a Member of the Agricultural Industries Confederation Limited. Buyer's Ref:... Seller's Ref:...
Ferts No. 8/09 (Effective from 12 th May 2009) AIC CONTRACT NOTE FOR FERTILISERS Issued by a Member of the Agricultural Industries Confederation Limited Date... Buyer's Ref:... Seller's Ref:... The Seller:......
More informationAPPENDIX FOR MARGIN ACCOUNTS
APPENDIX FOR MARGIN ACCOUNTS This Appendix applies if the Client opens or maintains a Margin Account in respect of margin facilities for trading in Securities. Unless otherwise defined in this Appendix,
More informationCHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) 3 CHAPTER 3:04 SUMMARY JURISDICTION (APPEALS) ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. MAKING OF APPEAL 3. (1) Right of appeal. (2) Appeals
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19)
COURT OF APPEAL RULES, 1997 (C.I 19) IN exercise of the powers conferred on the Rules of Court Committee by Article 157(2) of the Constitution these Rules are made this 24th day of July, 1997. PART I-GENERAL
More informationJUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 18 OCTOBER 2004
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE No: 924/2004 In the matter of NEDCOR BANK LTD Applicant and LISINFO 61 TRADING (PTY) LTD
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG. SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS. TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Not Reportable Case no: JS381/12 SA SOLIDARITY obo MT BOOI & 22 OTHERS Applicants and TECHNISTRUT (PTY) LTD t/a SELATI ROOFS Respondent Delivered: 15 July
More informationCHAPTER 75:01 CO-OPERATIVE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PART II
LAWS OF GUYANA Co-operative Financial Institutions 3 CHAPTER 75:01 CO-OPERATIVE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART I PRELIMINARY SECTION 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. PART II
More informationdo hereby bind myself/ourselves jointly and severally, as surety/ies and co-principal debtor/s in solidum, to and in favour of
I/We, the undersigned, do hereby bind myself/ourselves jointly and severally, as surety/ies and co-principal debtor/s in solidum, to and in favour of (hereinafter styled "the creditor/s"), for the due
More informationIN 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAVING BANK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGMENT In the matter between: Civil Case 820/15 LUZALUZILE FARMERS ASSOCIATION LTD Applicant And THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 st Respondent 2 nd Respondent
More informationDIVISION ADDRESS DETAILS
APPLICATION FOR CREDIT FACILITIES IN THE NAME OF REFERRED TO AS THE APPLICANT TO CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH KOLOK DIVISION ADDRESS DETAILS 31 Goldreef Road Ormonde Ext 32 Johannesburg PO Box 4151 Johannesburg
More informationOFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
1 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN CASE NO: 3394/2014 In the matter between: AIR TREATMENT ENGINEERING AND MAINTENANCE
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009
COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/24817 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 13 May 2016.. DATE... SIGNATURE In the matter
More informationRepublic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) In the matter between: CASE NO: 18783/2011 MR VIDEO (PTY) LTD...Applicant / Respondent and BROADWAY DVD CITY
More informationAXTON 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN
More informationTOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES. LTC Harms Japan 2017
TOPIC 13 CIVIL REMEDIES LTC Harms Japan 2017 SOURCES INTERNATIONAL: TRIPS NATIONAL Statute law: Copyright Act Trade Marks Act Patents Act Procedural law CIVIL REMEDIES Injunctions Interim injunctions Anton
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Plaintiff. Defendant
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 informationDOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
DOMESTIC ENQUIRY NEED FOR DOMESTIC ENQUIRY For the smooth functioning of an industry, the defined codes of discipline, contracts of service by awards, agreements and standing orders must be adhered to.
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG)
Page 1 of 24 IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) CASE NO: CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Applicant And South African Municpal Workers Union (SAMWU) 1 st Respondent
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD PAHARPUR COOLING TOWERS LIMITED
UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No: 28738/2006 Date heard: 25 & 26 /10/2007 Date of judgment: 12/05/2008 LONDOLOZA FORESTRY CONSORTIUM
More informationCHAPTER 26 THE DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
Section CHAPTER 26 THE DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT ACT [PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION] ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Title PART I PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS 1. Short title. 2. Interpretation. 3. Deeds of arrangement to which the
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: C144/08 In the matter between: BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS
More informationREPORTABLE JUDGMENT. [1] The institution of co-ownership harbours a conflict between the rights of
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 REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 6580 / 2006 JUDGMENT : 22 DECEMBER 2006
REPORTABLE THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO: 6580 / 2006 PENTA COMMUNICATION SERVICES (PTY) LTD Applicant
More informationHot 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 informationCREDIT APPLICATION INCORPORATING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
CREDIT APPLICATION INCORPORATING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE This credit agreement shall include the following companies, and is referred to as THE SUPPLIER B E D Holdings Proprietary Limited Registration
More informationSUGGESTED SOLUTION INTERMEDIATE M 19 EXAM. Test Code PIN 5049
SUGGESTED SOLUTION INTERMEDIATE M 19 EXAM SUBJECT- LAW Test Code PIN 5049 BRANCH - () (Date :) Head Office : Shraddha, 3 rd Floor, Near Chinai College, Andheri (E), Mumbai 69. Tel : (022) 26836666 1 P
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: J1780/14 In the matter between: BARBERTON MINES (PTY) LTD Applicant and ASSOCIATION OF MINEWORKERS AND CONSTRUCTION UNION
More information