Hippo Transport (Pty) Ltd v Afrisam Lesotho(Pty) Ltd (CCA 46 of 16) [2016] LSHC 31 (28 June 2016)

Hippo Transport (Pty) Ltd v Afrisam Lesotho(Pty) Ltd (CCA 46 of 16) [2016] LSHC 31 (28 June 2016)

Applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. The applicant had alternative remedies available. The requisites for an interim interdict were not met.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] LSHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Hippo Transport (Pty) Ltd; 1st Respondent: Afrisam Lesotho (Pty) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Daily Needs Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; 3rd Respondent: Dankie Transport (Pty) Ltd; 4th Respondent: Slitz Transport (Pty) Ltd; 5th Respondent: SP Logistics (Pty) Ltd; 6th Respondent: Mews Transport (Pty) Ltd; 7th Respondent: Motabo Transport (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
28 June 2016
Case Number
CCA 46 of 16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ruling on Interim Interdict
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Tender Process, Process Contract, Prima Facie Right, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
english
Contract Law Commercial Law Interim Interdict Tender Process Process Contract Prima Facie Right Balance of Convenience

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hippo Transport (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Afrisam Lesotho (Pty) Ltd

1st Respondent

Daily Needs Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

2nd Respondent

Dankie Transport (Pty) Ltd

3rd Respondent

Slitz Transport (Pty) Ltd

4th Respondent

SP Logistics (Pty) Ltd

5th Respondent

Mews Transport (Pty) Ltd

6th Respondent

Motabo Transport (Pty) Ltd

7th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ruling on Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant established a prima facie right to interim interdict
  2. 2 Whether applicant would suffer irreparable harm
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favours granting interim interdict

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the relief sought, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondents. The applicant had alternative remedies available. The requisites for an interim interdict were not met.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for the interim interdict is dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale.
  • Costs will be costs in the course.