Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Clarence NO and Others (1977/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 34 (26 February 2021)

Coessa Development Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Clarence NO and Others (1977/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 34 (26 February 2021)

The court found that DKVG was intended to be a party to the settlement agreement, as evidenced by the document's provisions, the inclusion of DKVG among the designated parties, and the conduct of the parties. DKVG's refusal to sign prevented the settlement agreement from coming into force. The applicant's argument that DKVG owed obligations solely to Coessa was rejected, as the conveyancer's fiduciary duties extend to both the seller and the buyer, and the purchase price was held in trust pending transfer. The court further held that Coessa failed to establish that prescription ever started to run, and that tacit acknowledgment of the obligation to transfer was demonstrated by Coessa's...

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 34
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
26 February 2021
Case Number
1977/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rogers
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Settlement Agreement, Fiduciary Duties, Prescription, Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Settlement Agreement Fiduciary Duties Prescription Transfer of Property

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 1
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

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DKVG was intended to be a party to the settlement agreement and whether its refusal to sign prevented the agreement from coming into force.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's argument that DKVG owed obligations solely to Coessa is tenable.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement was valid and enforceable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that DKVG was intended to be a party to the settlement agreement, as evidenced by the document's provisions, the inclusion of DKVG among the designated parties, and the conduct of the parties. DKVG's refusal to sign prevented the settlement agreement from coming into force. The applicant's argument that DKVG owed obligations solely to Coessa was rejected, as the conveyancer's fiduciary duties extend to both the seller and the buyer, and the purchase price was held in trust pending transfer. The court further held that Coessa failed to establish that prescription ever started to run, and that tacit acknowledgment of the obligation to transfer was demonstrated by Coessa's...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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