Besserglik v Benions and Another (AR210/14) [2015] ZAKZPHC 26 (11 May 2015)

Besserglik v Benions and Another (AR210/14) [2015] ZAKZPHC 26 (11 May 2015)

The court found that the suspensive condition in the management agreement was validly amended by mutual consent to allow for a five-year lease with an option to renew, and was thus satisfied. The management agreement was not a prohibited sublease, and the appellant was entitled to payment of R72,000 under the agreement. The respondents failed to establish their claims for set-off and counterclaims, as the evidence regarding loans was unsatisfactory and the alleged enrichment claims related to camp C were not sustainable against the appellant as tenant. The appellant was entitled to a full, vouched accounting in respect of camp B due to the fiduciary nature of the management agreement. No...

Citation
[2015] ZAKZPHC 26
Parties
Appellant: Obed Besserglik; Respondent: Brian Benions; Respondent: Bencon Projects
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Case Number
AR 210/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal both upheld in part; magistrate's orders set aside and substituted.
Judges
Olsen, D Pillay
Legal Topics
Management Agreement, Set Off, Fiduciary Duty, Enrichment, Accounting, Interest on Judgment Debt
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Management Agreement Set Off Fiduciary Duty Enrichment Accounting Interest on Judgment Debt

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Obed Besserglik

Appellant

Brian Benions

Respondent

Bencon Projects

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suspensive condition in the management agreement was validly amended and satisfied.
  2. 2 Whether the management agreement constituted a sublease prohibited by the main lease.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' claim for set-off and counterclaims were established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suspensive condition in the management agreement was validly amended by mutual consent to allow for a five-year lease with an option to renew, and was thus satisfied. The management agreement was not a prohibited sublease, and the appellant was entitled to payment of R72,000 under the agreement. The respondents failed to establish their claims for set-off and counterclaims, as the evidence regarding loans was unsatisfactory and the alleged enrichment claims related to camp C were not sustainable against the appellant as tenant. The appellant was entitled to a full, vouched accounting in respect of camp B due to the fiduciary nature of the management agreement. No...

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal both upheld in part; magistrate's orders set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant R72,000 together with interest at 15.5% per annum from 31 January 2014 to date of payment.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to render a full account of the business conducted between them and the applicant in relation to camp B for the period 1 June 2007 to 1 February 2009, supported by invoices, a detailed income statement, and vouchers, within 14 days.