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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 210
|
|
Bedrock Drilling BK v Du Preez (32488/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 210 (20 April 2015)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH APRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
CASE
NO: 32488/2012
DATE:
20 APRIL 2015
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
IN
THE MATTER BETWEEN:
BEDROCK
DRILLING
BK
..............................................................................................
APPLICANT
AND
JOHAN
NICOLAAS DU
PREEZ
.................................................................................
RESPONDENT
IN
RE:
JOHAN
NICOLAAS DU
PREEZ
......................................................................................
PLAINTIFF
AND
BEDROCK
DRILLING
BK
.............................................................................................
DEFENDANT
J U D G M E
N T
KUBUSHI,
J
1.
The applicant seeRs an order for
l
eave
to appeal,to the full court of this d
i
vision,
against the whole of
my judgment
and
order handed down on
1
9
December 20
1
4.
2.
The
i
ssues
which stood to be
determined
at
the
hearing
of
this matter were -
whether
a partnership
as
alleged by
the
respondent was entered
i
nto
by
the
parties;
and
i
f
so, what was the
n
ature
of the partnership.
3.
I
n
my
judgment,
Ifound
that
a
partnership
agreement
was
entered
i
nto
between
the
appl
i
cant
and
the
respondent,
and
as
such
Iordered
the
applicant
to
provide
the
respondent
with
the
statement of account
of the
transactions
and
business
carried
out by
the
appl
i
cant
from 30
April
20
1
0
to
date
of
judgment duly
supported
by
documentation
to
prove
such
transactions,within
two
months,
coupled
with
a
cost
order.
4.
The
applicant's contention
i
s
that
Ierred
i
n
find
i
ng
that the partnership agreement
was
common cause between
the
parties.
A
further assertion
by
the
appl
i
cant
i
s
that
having
found
that
the agreement
was a
partnership Iought to have
considered
the
nature
of
the
agreement,and,
i
n
not doing so,Im
i
sd
i
rected
myself.
5.
At the
hearing
of the
application
the
app
l
i
cant
applied
for
the amendment
of
the
application
for
l
eave
to
appeal
for
further
i
nsertion
of
another ground
of
appeal.
The
new grou
n
d
to be
i
nserted
was
that Ierred
i
n
granting
an
order
directing
the
appl
i
cant
to
provide
the
respondent
with
the
statement
of
account
of
the
transactions
and
b
u
siness
carried
out
by
the
appl
i
cant
from
30
April
20
1
0
to
date
of
judgment
,duly
supported by documentation to prove such transactions.
6.
The
respondent's counsel had no d
i
fficulty
with the amendment and conceded that
the
respondent
d
i
d
n
ot
seeR all the
i
nformation
pertaining
to the
business of the
applicant
but
only
i
n
respect
of the b
u
siness
of the yellow drill.
Igranted
the
application.
7.
Accord
i
ng
to
the
appl
i
cant's
counsel,the
evidence
of
the
appl
i
cant
i
s
that
there
was
joint
ownership
i
n
respect
of
the
yellow
drill
and
not
a
partnersh
i
p
and
i
f
the
court
fou
n
d
that
there
was
a
partners
h
i
p
,as
i
t
di
d
,
i
t
shou
l
d
have
considered
the
nature
of
the
partnershi
p
,which
i
t
fai
l
ed
to
do.
Throughout
h
i
s
ev
i
dence,the
respondent
contended
for
a
25%
share
i
n
the
drill.
The
evidence
also
shows
ownership
of
the
drill to be that of Mr Meintj
i
es,so
the argume
n
t
went. And,on that
basis,
i
t
was
contended
that there were
prospects of success that another court
might
come to
a
d
i
fferent
conclusion.
8.
Iam also
of the view that
there are prospects of success that another court may
come
to a d
i
fferent
conclusion
as to whether
there
was joint ownership of the yellow
d
rill
or
a
partnership entered
between
the
parties.
The
error
i
n
the
order, even though the subm
i
ssion
by the respondent's counsel
i
s
that
i
t
can be corrected
i
n
terms
of
uniform
ru
l
e
42,
i
s
another
reason
why
there
are prospects
of
another
court
arriving
at a
d
i
fferent
conclusion.
9.
Consequently,
Imalre
the
following
order:
(a)
The
applicant
i
s
gra
n
ted
l
eave
to appeal,to the full court of
this
d
i
vision,
against
the whole
of my
judgment
and
order handed
down
on 19
December
2014.
(b)
The
costs
of the
application
are
costs
i
n
the
appeal.
E.M. KUBUSHI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
APPEARANCES
HEARD
ON THE:
17
APRIL
2015
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 20 APRIL 2015
APPLICANT'S
COUNCIL:
S.J
MYBURGH
APPLICANT'S
ATTORNEY: COMBRINK & JAMNECK ATTORNEYS
RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY:
B.
MC
DONALD
RESPONDENT'S
ATTORNEY
:
BEN
MC
DONALD
ATTORNEYS