Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd v King Trade Investment 21 (Pty) Ltd (25920/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 875 (2 December 2015)

Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd v King Trade Investment 21 (Pty) Ltd (25920/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 875 (2 December 2015)

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, as the respondents ultimately consented to the relief sought in the urgent application. The respondents' conduct in reneging on a written undertaking not to proceed with the sale of the properties, and in attempting to sell the properties despite the pending rescission application, was deemed malicious and intended to cause harm to the applicant. The special power of attorney relied upon by the respondents was found to be irrelevant, as it related only to two properties and had been superseded by a subsequent acknowledgement of debt. The urgent application was necessary to protect the applicant's interests, and the respondents...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 875
Parties
Applicant: Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: King Trade Investment 21 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johan Hendrik Tolstoi Kruger; Respondent: Lumedia (Pty) Ltd t/a Letaba Herald; Respondent: Laeveld Bulletin CC; Respondent: The Sheriff for the District of Letaba
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2015
Case Number
25920/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Rescission Order
Outcome
The first and second respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the urgent application on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
N P Mngqibisa-Thusi
Legal Topics
Punitive Costs, Urgent Interdict, Undertaking Breach, Rescission of Judgment
Civil Procedure Punitive Costs Urgent Interdict Undertaking Breach Rescission of Judgment

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Moonlight Properties 82 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

King Trade Investment 21 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Johan Hendrik Tolstoi Kruger

Respondent

Lumedia (Pty) Ltd t/a Letaba Herald

Respondent

Laeveld Bulletin CC

Respondent

The Sheriff for the District of Letaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Urgent Application and Rescission Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a punitive costs order against the first and second respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the respondents in proceeding with the sale of the properties despite a written undertaking justifies a punitive costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the urgent application was necessary and justified under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was the successful party, as the respondents ultimately consented to the relief sought in the urgent application. The respondents' conduct in reneging on a written undertaking not to proceed with the sale of the properties, and in attempting to sell the properties despite the pending rescission application, was deemed malicious and intended to cause harm to the applicant. The special power of attorney relied upon by the respondents was found to be irrelevant, as it related only to two properties and had been superseded by a subsequent acknowledgement of debt. The urgent application was necessary to protect the applicant's interests, and the respondents...

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of the urgent application on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on an attorney and client scale, to pay the costs of the urgent application.