About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 285
|
|
Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation Ltd v Russil Van Der Haer Agencies (Pty) Ltd T/A Damelin College (20083/06) [2010] ZAGPPHC 285 (14 April 2010)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOITH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG
DIVISION)
CASE
NO.: 20083/06
DATE:
14 APRIL 2010
In the matter
between
HIGHVF.LD STEEl,
AND VANADIUM
CORPORATION
LTD
........................................................................................
Applicant
And
RUSS1L VAN DER
HAER AGENCIES (PTY)
LTD. TRADING AS
DAMELIN
COLLEGE
.............................................
Respondent
CORAM: EBERSOHN
AJ
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT HANDED
DOWN ON 14 APRIL 2010
APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
EBERSOHN AJ.
[I] In this judgment
the parties will he referred to as in convention.
[2] After hearing
evidence and argument the Court granted judgment in favour of the
plaintiff with costs.
[3] The defendant
filed a notice of application for leave to appeal. In the notice
three proposed grounds were stated.
[14] AD FIRST GROUND.
The defendant
repeats the same points raised in argument regarding the Alienation
of Land Act. after evidence was heard and this
aspect was fully dealt
with in the written judgment and it is not necessary to deal with it
again.
[5] AD SECOND
GROUND:
In this ground it is
the contention of the defendant that the premises were noi properly
identified and that the right of first
refusal was a pactum de
contrahcndo which was unenforceable. The premises were properly
identified and the defendant apparently
lost sight of the contract of
sale with Alibiprops. annexure "F" to the particulars of
claim which was uncontroverted.
The said agreement puts paid to any
argument that the premises were not identifiable and not identified.
Tne plaintiff did not
sue for transfer but sued for damages, a fact
the defendant didn't grasp.
[6] AD THIRD GROUND:
It is the contention
of the defendant that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving its
damages. This aspect was fully dealt with
in the written judgment and
summed up in paragraph [44) thereof.
[71 There are no
prospects of success with the proposed appeal and the Court
accordingly makes the following order:
1. The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs
P.Z. EBERSOHN
ACTING .11 DCF OF
THF HIGH COURT
Applicant's
counsel Adv. A.E. BHAM SC
Applicant's
attorneys DENEYS REITZ
c\o MOTHLE JOOMA
SABDIA INC Ref.MR. E. JOOMA TEL. 012X362 3137
Respondent's
counsel Art. A.P. BRANDMULLER
Respondent's
attorneys: BRANDMULLERS
c\o ROOTH &
WESSELS Ref. A.T.LAMEY /AM/B22672 TEL. 012 X 452 4118