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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPPHC 459
|
|
Cathoros Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (54095/2013; 90165/2015) [2024] ZAGPPHC 459 (17 May 2024)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
Number: 54095/2013 & 90165/2015
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
2024-05-17
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
CATHOROS
COMMODITIES (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
ANGLO
OPERATIONS (PTY)
LTD
Respondent
This
judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to
the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
The date for
handing down is deemed to be 17 May 2024.
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL
J
[1]
I have re-read the judgment, the application for leave to appeal and
the heads of
argument on behalf of both parties. I also
listened to the argument on behalf of both parties.
[2]
Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to
appeal is granted.
Claim
1
[3]
The nub of the appeal is that the court did not interpret the
contract correctly.
If only the source, Landau, was relevant
then the coal would not have been specified as “Kromdraai ROM.”
[4]
I am satisfied that if regard is had to the particulars of claim, the
contract, the
evidence setting out the circumstances attendant upon
the contract coming into existence; the fact that Cathoros was
an existing
client, where the trucks had to pick up the coal;
no other court would reasonably come to another conclusion.
[5]
The argument that the coal that was delivered was of a better quality
is of no consequence,
is simply contrived, because no evidence was
led as to how receiving better coal materially breached the
contract. The argument
that even if the applicant received a
Mercedes, it asked for a Toyota, is rejected because the applicant
received a Toyota;
just a better and bigger model.
Claim
2
[6]
It is quite clear the price was fixed
ex post facto
the
request for the coal to be delivered due to the common cause urgency
of the request by the applicant.
The
evidence of Mr. Shaw regarding deliveries, invoices and prices were
not placed in dispute and was correctly accepted.
[7]
I am satisfied that the refusal to pay claims 1 and 2 is business
lawfare which a
court cannot sanction and the application for leave
to appeal is dismissed with costs, with costs of senior counsel;
scale
C.
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE NO:
54095/2013 & 90165/2015
HEARD ON:
16 May 2024
FOR THE APPLICANT:
ADV. S.J. VAN
RENSBURG SC
INSTRUCTED BY:
Van
Rensburg Kruger Rakwena Inc. c/o VZLR Inc.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
ADV. E.C.
LABUSCHAGNE SC
INSTRUCTED BY:
Savage Jooste &
Adams
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
17 May 2024