Blue Moonlight Properties 50 Pty Ltd and Another v Bartman (3533/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 249 (23 October 2007)

Blue Moonlight Properties 50 Pty Ltd and Another v Bartman (3533/2006) [2007] ZAGPHC 249 (23 October 2007)

The court found that the respondent's version was far-fetched and untenable, and that the disputes of fact did not warrant referral for oral evidence or cross-examination. The co-shareholders had either transferred their shares or were prepared to do so, and their affidavits refuted the respondent's claims of being forced or misled. The Sale of Shares Agreement did not contravene Section 38 of the Companies Act, as there was no prima facie indication of such contravention and the respondent himself certified compliance. The alleged cancellation of the agreement was not effected, as the respondent accepted payment and did not act to cancel. The respondent failed to establish prejudice due...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 249
Parties
Applicant: Blue Moonlight Properties 50 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Present Perfect Investments 260 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Anton Walter Bartman
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2007
Case Number
3533/2006
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Prayers 1 to 4 of the Notice of Motion.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Williams AJ
Legal Topics
Sale of Shares Agreement, Section 38 Companies Act, Disputes of Fact, Leave to Appeal, Fraud Allegations
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Sale of Shares Agreement Section 38 Companies Act Disputes of Fact Leave to Appeal Fraud Allegations

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Moonlight Properties 50 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Present Perfect Investments 260 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Anton Walter Bartman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Prayers 1 to 4 of the Notice of Motion.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the matter should have been referred for oral evidence due to disputes of fact.
  2. 2 Whether the protagonists of the First Applicant could commit the Second Applicant to the application.
  3. 3 Whether the co-shareholders had transferred their shares and the effect thereof.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's version was far-fetched and untenable, and that the disputes of fact did not warrant referral for oral evidence or cross-examination. The co-shareholders had either transferred their shares or were prepared to do so, and their affidavits refuted the respondent's claims of being forced or misled. The Sale of Shares Agreement did not contravene Section 38 of the Companies Act, as there was no prima facie indication of such contravention and the respondent himself certified compliance. The alleged cancellation of the agreement was not effected, as the respondent accepted payment and did not act to cancel. The respondent failed to establish prejudice due...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.