Cordier v Poolman (1489/2019) [2019] ZANCHC 31 (23 July 2019)

Cordier v Poolman (1489/2019) [2019] ZANCHC 31 (23 July 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the game, as he had cancelled the contract and only claimed damages, not specific performance. The applicant's own pleadings confirmed the cancellation, extinguishing any right to enforce the contract or claim ownership of the game. The respondent's version that the applicant had not paid the full purchase price could not be rejected on the papers. The Trust, as owner of the farms and most of the game, was not joined, but the court accepted that restricting the order to the disputed game would avoid prejudice. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent and the Trust, as hunting was necessary to prevent...

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Piet Sagarias Cordier; Respondent: Heinrich George Poolman
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2019
Case Number
1489/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Non Joinder, Ownership of Game, Contract Cancellation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Non Joinder Ownership of Game Contract Cancellation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piet Sagarias Cordier

Applicant

Heinrich George Poolman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict preventing the respondent from dealing with the game pending finalisation of the action.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a prima facie right to the game given the alleged cancellation of the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the Trust is a necessary party and non-joinder is fatal to the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie right to the game, as he had cancelled the contract and only claimed damages, not specific performance. The applicant's own pleadings confirmed the cancellation, extinguishing any right to enforce the contract or claim ownership of the game. The respondent's version that the applicant had not paid the full purchase price could not be rejected on the papers. The Trust, as owner of the farms and most of the game, was not joined, but the court accepted that restricting the order to the disputed game would avoid prejudice. The balance of convenience favoured the respondent and the Trust, as hunting was necessary to prevent...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.