Abrinah 7804 (Pty) Ltd v Kapa Koni Investment CC (717/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 1 (13 January 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZANCHC 1
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Mamosebo
- Case number
- 717/2016
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Mamosebo
- Case number
- 717/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The arguments advanced regarding the alleged nullity of the agreement and the nature of Clause 2 as a suspensive condition were fully addressed in the main judgment. The applicant's conduct in writing the letter and seeking cancellation indicated acceptance of the agreement's validity. The respondent complied with the requirements within the stipulated period. The court was satisfied that its interpretation of the agreement and the relevant correspondence was correct and that no other court would likely reach a different conclusion.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Abrinah 7804 (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: AG Van TonderKapa Koni Investment CC
Respondent Counsel: WJ Coetzee SC03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench or Supreme Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the agreement between the parties was null and void as at 3 February 2016.
- 02
Whether the suspensive condition in Clause 2 was properly fulfilled or could be extended.
- 03
Whether the purported cancellation of the agreement by the applicant was lawful.
- 04
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the agreement between the parties was null and void as at 3 February 2016, arguing that the suspensive condition had not been fulfilled and could not be extended. The applicant further submitted that the court erred in interpreting the letter dated 15 February 2016 and that another court might construe it differently.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that if the applicant truly regarded the agreement as void, there would have been no need to write the letter in question or to cancel the contract, as there would have been nothing to cancel. The respondent maintained that Clause 2 was not a suspensive condition and that the respondent had complied with the requirements within the afforded 14-day period.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Main judgment, para 17
An agreement is not void if parties continue to act in terms of it and seek to enforce its provisions, including cancellation.
- 02
Main judgment, para 17
A suspensive condition must be clearly identified; not every clause constitutes such a condition.
- 03
Superior Courts Act, s 17
Leave to appeal may only be granted if there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The arguments advanced regarding the alleged nullity of the agreement and the nature of Clause 2 as a suspensive condition were fully addressed in the main judgment. The applicant's conduct in writing the letter and seeking cancellation indicated acceptance of the agreement's validity. The respondent complied with the requirements within the stipulated period. The court was satisfied that its interpretation of the agreement and the relevant correspondence was correct and that no other court would likely reach a different conclusion.
Obiter and limits
- If the applicant truly believed the agreement was void, there would have been no need for cancellation or further correspondence.
- Clause 2 does not constitute a suspensive condition as argued by the applicant.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Case No: 717/2016
Heard on: 08/12/2016
Delivered on: 13/01/2017
In the matter between:
ABRI NAH 7804 (PTY)
LTD
APPLICANT
And
KAPA
KONI INVESTMENT
CC
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
MAMOSEBO J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal, to the Full Bench of the Northern Cape Division, alternatively the Supreme Court of Appeal, against the whole of my judgment delivered on 14 October 2016, with the following order:
1.1 That the agreement between the Kapa Koni Investment s CC and Abrinah 7804 (Pty) Ltd concluded on 04 August 20 15 is still valid;
1.2 That the purported cancellation of the agreement by Abrinah 7804 (Pty) Ltd on 07 March 2016 was wrongful; and
1.3 That Abrinah 7804 (Pty) Ltd pays the costs of this application on the party and party scale.
[2] The applicant's main argument revolved around the submission that I erred in not find ing that the agreement between the patties was null and void as at 03 February 2016 and that it was not possible to extend the period within which the suspensive condition had not been fulfilled. Adv Van Tonder, appearing for the applicant, sought to convince me further that I erred in the interpretation of the contents of the letter dated 15 February 2016 and therefore that another Court may construe it differently.
[3] Para 17 of the main judgment disposes of the submissions by Adv Van Tonder fully. Counsel has not dealt with the purpose of this l etter both in his oral and written submissions. A point correctly taken by Adv Coetzee SC is that if the applicant regarded the agreement to be void there would not have been any need to write the letter in question and neither would the necessity to cancel the contract have arisen because there would have been nothing to cancel. Counsel expounded, correctly so in my view, that in any event Clause 2 is not a suspensive condition as submitted by Adv Van Tonder.
[4] The applicant had afforded Kapa Koni Investment CC 14 days to comply with Clause 2 of the agreement which it did. Having heard counsel 's submissions on both sides, it remains my view that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. See s 17 of the Superior Courts act, 10 of 2013.
[5] In the result the following order is made:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_______
MAMOSEBO
J
NORTHERN
CAPE HIGH COURT
For the applicant: Adv AG Van Tonder
Instructed by:
Van de Wall Inc
For the respondent: Ad v WJ Coetzee SC
Instructed by:
Towell Groenewaldt Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.