Assen Iron Ore Mine (Pty) Ltd v Franco Le Roux Mining (Pty) Ltd (12441/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 188 (19 March 2021)

Assen Iron Ore Mine (Pty) Ltd v Franco Le Roux Mining (Pty) Ltd (12441/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 188 (19 March 2021)

The court found that the respondent's cancellation of the agreement was unlawful, as no demand for payment of the second site establishment fee was made and the payment was not yet due under the terms of the agreement. The respondent failed to deliver all required equipment and was itself in breach. The applicant's reference to cash constraints was not a refusal or inability to pay, but a statement of damages suffered due to the respondent's delays. The respondent's conduct in obtaining an ex parte order for equipment removal was an abuse of process. The applicant satisfied the requirements for urgent relief and specific performance. The respondent was ordered to comply with the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 188
Parties
Applicant: Assen Iron Ore Mine (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Franco Le Roux Mining (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2021
Case Number
12441/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent ordered to comply with the agreement and pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Interdict, Breach of Contract, Urgent Relief
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Specific Performance Interdict Breach of Contract Urgent Relief

Case Brief

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assen Iron Ore Mine (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Franco Le Roux Mining (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully cancelled the mining services agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was in breach of its payment obligations under the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to remove its equipment from the applicant's site.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's cancellation of the agreement was unlawful, as no demand for payment of the second site establishment fee was made and the payment was not yet due under the terms of the agreement. The respondent failed to deliver all required equipment and was itself in breach. The applicant's reference to cash constraints was not a refusal or inability to pay, but a statement of damages suffered due to the respondent's delays. The respondent's conduct in obtaining an ex parte order for equipment removal was an abuse of process. The applicant satisfied the requirements for urgent relief and specific performance. The respondent was ordered to comply with the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent ordered to comply with the agreement and pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The matter is ruled urgent as contemplated in Rule 6(12).
  • The respondent is ordered to forthwith abide by and comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into on 11 February 2021, including delivery of the 4.8 screen and three front-end loaders and other equipment contemplated in clause 7.