About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2007
>>
[2007] ZANCHC 69
|
|
Veneska Beleggings BK v Snyman and Another (108/07) [2007] ZANCHC 69 (19 October 2007)
Reportable:
YES / NO
Circulate
to Judges:
YES / NO
Circulate
to Magistrates:
YES / NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: YES /
NO
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Northern
Cape Division)
Case
Nr: 108/07
Heard: 21/09/07
Delivered: 19/10/07
In
the matter between:
VENESKA
BELEGGINGS BK Applicant
REG.
NR. 1998/020988/23
And
HENDRIK
SCHALK SNYMAN 1
st
Respondent
ADRIAAN
JOHANNES CLOETE 3
rd
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mokgohloa
A J:
The
applicant brought an urgent application on 21 September 2007 for an
order in the following terms:
“
1.
dat afgesien word van die vorms en betekening deur die hofreël
voorgeskryf en dat
hierdie
aansoek as ‘n dringende aansoek bereg word;
2. dat
die respondente beveel word om die besigheid wat te Hoofstraat 37,
Postmasburg, as ‘n hotel en ‘n buiteverbruik
bedryf word
onder die naam van POSTMASBURG HOTEL (“die besigheid”)
aan mev Engela Magrieta Richards (“Richards”)
namens die
applicant terug te handig voor of op 08:00 Maandag, 24 September
2007;
dat
die adjunk balju, Postmasburg gemagting word om, indien die
respondente sou versuim om paragraaf 2 van hierdie bevel na te
kom,
die besigheid op Maandag 24 September 2007 in besit te neem en aan
Richards te oorhandig;
dat
die adjunk balju gemagtig word om, indien nodig, die hulp van die
Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens in te roep ten einde hierdie
bevel uit
te voer;
dat
die respondente gesamentlik en afsonderlik beveel word om die
applikant se koste van hierdie aansoek te betaal, die een betaal
die
ander kwytgeskeld te word;
dat
daar aan die applikant verdere en/of alternatiewe regshulp verleen
word.”
The
application was opposed. I struck the matter from the roll with
costs for want of urgency and reserved my reasons. This
judgment
serves to convey to the parties the reasons for my decision.
The
background of this application can be summarized as follows:
3.1 The
applicant, Vaneska Beleggings Bk was the owner of the Postmansburg
Hotel business (“the business”) which was
managed by Ms
Engela Richards and her husband Mr Willem Richards.
3.2 On
16 August 2006 the applicant entered into a written sale agreement
with the respondents in respect of the business for a
purchase price
of R2 012 000.00. In terms of the agreement the respondents were to
pay a deposit of R500 000-00 and the balance
thereof payable in
monthly installments of R63 000.00. It was a further term of the
agreement that should the respondents fail
to make payment of any
installment due, the whole balance will become due and payable
immediately and the applicant may issue summons
for the payment
thereof.
3.3 The
respondents paid the deposit and commenced operating the business.
However, the respondents fell in arrears with their
monthly
installments. The applicant exercised its rights in terms of the
sale agreement and issued summons against the respondents.
Judgment
by default was granted against the respondents in the amount of R151
200.00 on 4 December 2006.
3.4 Although
the applicant had given notice to the respondents of cancellation of
the sale agreement, the parties nonetheless entered
into a written
addendum to the original sale agreement in terms whereof the
respondents offered to make increased monthly installments
to the
balance outstanding. The parties further agreed to ignore the notice
of cancellation of the original sale agreement.
3.5 Regrettably,
the respondents failed to honour the written addendum agreement.
At that time the respondents advised the applicant
that the bottle
store which formed part of the business was not operating due to bad
business and that this led to their financial
downfall.
These
events led to the applicant bringing an urgent application against
the respondents on 9 February 2007 for the relief on
the following
terms:
“
2.1
dat
verklaar word dat die sluiting deur die partye van die addendum
gedateer 16
Januarie 2007 ‘n
nuwe ooreenkoms
tussen die partye daar gestel het gestaande uit die ooreenkoms
gedateer 16 Augustus 2006 soos gewysig en aangevul
deur die addendum
(“die nuwe ooreenkoms”);
dat
verklaar word dat die applikant die nuwe ooreenkoms op 31 Januarie
2007 regsgeldiglik kanselleer het;
dat
respondente en elke persoon wat deur hulle in okkupasie van die
besigheid en onroerende eiendom bekend as die Postmasburg
Hotel
geleë te Hoofstraat 37, Postmasburg, (“die hotel”)
is, beveel word om die hotel onmiddellik te ontruim
en die besit en
okkupasie daarvan aan mev Engele Magrieta Richards (“mev
Richards”) namens die applikant te oorhandig
MET DIEN
VERSTANDE dat hierdie bevel nie op enige bona fide gas wat by the
hotel ingeboek mag wees van toepassing is nie;
dat
indien die respondent of enige ander persoon soos bedoel in
paragraaf 4 van hierdie bevel wat die hotel onregmatig okkupeer,
weier om die besit daarvan onmiddellik na die uitreiking van
hierdie bevel aan mev Richards te oorhandig, word die Baljue,
Postmasburg gemagtig en beveel om die hotel te betree, die
ongemagtigde persone van die perseel te verwyder, en mev Richards
in besit daarvan te plaas;
dat
die applikant beveel word om volledig boek te hou van die uitgawes
en inkomste van die hotel vanaf die stadium dat hy na
aanleiding
van hierdie bevel besit daarvan verkry totdat hierdie aansoek
finaal bereg is;
dat
die respondente beveel word om die koste van hierdie aansoek te
betaal;
dat
verdere en/of alternatiewe regshulp aan die applicant verleen word.
3. Dat die
bedes vervat in paragrawe 2.1 to en met 2.5 van onmiddellike krag sal
wees hangende die finale beregting van hierdie
aansoek.”
The
application was opposed and was subsequently postponed to 9 March
2007 for trial. On 9 March 2007 the matter was postponed
per
agreement between the parties to 4 May 2007. The parties further
agreed that the applicant will pay the wasted costs for
the
postponement in the amount of R3 000.00 payable on or before 4 May
2007. On 4 May 2007 the application was further postponed
to 22
June 2007 for trial.
On
22 June 2007 the matter came before Williams J. At that time the
applicant had already abandoned prayers 2.3 and 2.5 of the
Notice of
Motion. The first respondent had in the meantime withdrawn his
opposition and the second respondent consented to the
granting of
prayers 2.1 and 2.2 of the applicant’s Notice of Motion.
Rule
6(12) of the Uniform Court Rules provides that in every affidavit
filled in support of any urgent applications, the applicant
shall
set forth explicitly the circumstances which he avers render the
matter urgent and the reasons why he claims that he could
not be
afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
In
casu
,
the applicant relied on the summary of facts as outlined in
paragraph 3
supra
and
the
fact
that the respondents are in a precarious financial stage as they
have many debts which they cannot satisfy.
These
circumstances which the applicant avers render the matter urgent
existed in February 2007 when the matter was set down for
the first
time. In the interim the matter was postponed thrice. In the
process the status
quo
has
now changed in that the bottle store which was closed during
February 2007 is now opened and in operation with no goodwill
lost.
Quite logically the financial status of the respondents is likely to
have improved. I am of the view that this matter
has since lost its
urgency as a result of the many postponements and interim
arrangements made between the parties. See
Venture
Capital Ltd v Mauerberger
1991 (1) SA 96
(W). Therefore this matter will have to be enrolled
in accordance with the Rules in the normal opposed motion roll.
I
therefore reiterate that this matter is struck from the roll of the
urgent court with costs.
___________________
F
E MOKGOHLOA
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION
For
the Applicant: Adv. B Knoetze SC
Instructed
by: Elliot, Maris, Wilmans & Hay
For
the Respondents: Adv. Van Niekerk SC
Instructed
by: Mjila & Vennote