CF and SP Investments CC v PPA Lightco CC and Another (94051/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 365 (9 May 2017)

CF and SP Investments CC v PPA Lightco CC and Another (94051/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 365 (9 May 2017)

The court found that the authorities cited by the applicant do not support its case for leave to appeal. The impugned clause 2.2, if regarded as pro non scripto, would render the contract non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of the Alienation of Land Act, as the period for transfer would be indeterminate. The court is not permitted to interpret the clause in a manner inconsistent with its wording or to create new terms for the parties. The applicant failed to seek rectification, which was the only remedy available. There are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 365
Parties
Applicant: CF & SP Investments CC; Respondent: PPA Lightco CC; Respondent: Zenia Smith
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2017
Case Number
94051/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rautenbach
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Contract Rectification, Interpretation of Contracts, Specific Performance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Alienation of Land Act Contract Rectification Interpretation of Contracts Specific Performance

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CF & SP Investments CC

Applicant

PPA Lightco CC

Respondent

Zenia Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of its main application.
  2. 2 Whether clause 2.2 of the Deed of Sale is pro non scripto and its effect on the validity of the contract under the Alienation of Land Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to rectification of the contract or any other remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the authorities cited by the applicant do not support its case for leave to appeal. The impugned clause 2.2, if regarded as pro non scripto, would render the contract non-compliant with the mandatory provisions of the Alienation of Land Act, as the period for transfer would be indeterminate. The court is not permitted to interpret the clause in a manner inconsistent with its wording or to create new terms for the parties. The applicant failed to seek rectification, which was the only remedy available. There are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

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