Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Clarence NO and Others (1977/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 171 (2 December 2020)

Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Clarence NO and Others (1977/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 171 (2 December 2020)

The court found that the settlement agreement was not binding because DKVG, an intended party, refused to sign. The inclusion of DKVG as a signatory was deliberate and necessary given its role as conveyancer and holder of trust funds. Without DKVG's signature, the agreement did not come into force, and the pending High Court action was not compromised. Consequently, the 2010 interdict and caveat remain in force. The court further held that, even if the settlement agreement had been binding, prescription would not have begun to run because the obligation to transfer was contingent on DKVG providing an undertaking, which never occurred. The applicant's reliance on prescription would have...

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 171
Parties
Applicant: Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Graham Clarence NO; Respondent: Terence Smith NO; Respondent: Tergrahm Projects CC; Respondent: K Carrim Commercial Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2020
Case Number
1977/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; counter-application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Rogers
Legal Topics
Sectional Title Transfer, Settlement Agreement Enforceability, Prescription Act, Interdict and Caveat, Trust Property Transfer
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sectional Title Transfer Settlement Agreement Enforceability Prescription Act Interdict and Caveat Trust Property Transfer

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Graham Clarence NO

Respondent

Terence Smith NO

Respondent

Tergrahm Projects CC

Respondent

K Carrim Commercial Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement concluded in March 2014 was binding without the signature of DKVG.
  2. 2 Whether Coessa's obligation to transfer the apartment to TGT has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the 2010 interdict and caveat should be uplifted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement was not binding because DKVG, an intended party, refused to sign. The inclusion of DKVG as a signatory was deliberate and necessary given its role as conveyancer and holder of trust funds. Without DKVG's signature, the agreement did not come into force, and the pending High Court action was not compromised. Consequently, the 2010 interdict and caveat remain in force. The court further held that, even if the settlement agreement had been binding, prescription would not have begun to run because the obligation to transfer was contingent on DKVG providing an undertaking, which never occurred. The applicant's reliance on prescription would have...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; counter-application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The counter-application is dismissed with no order as to costs.