Cosira Developments (Pty) Ltd v Sam Lubbe Investments CC t/a Lubbe Construction and Others (09/20062) [2011] ZAGPJHC 110; 2011 (6) SA 331 (GSJ) (9 September 2011)

Cosira Developments (Pty) Ltd v Sam Lubbe Investments CC t/a Lubbe Construction and Others (09/20062) [2011] ZAGPJHC 110; 2011 (6) SA 331 (GSJ) (9 September 2011)

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to claim specific performance against the council because there was no privity of contract between the applicant and the council. The August 2005 agreements were distinct from the June 2005 agreements between Lubbe and the council, and no tripartite agreement...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] ZAGPJHC 110
Parties
Applicant: Cosira Developments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sam Lubbe Investments CC t/a Lubbe Construction; Respondent: Samuel Mandla Lubbe; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2011
Case Number
09/20062
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Successive Sales, Privity of Contract, Locus Standi, Municipal Tender, Public Policy
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Specific Performance Successive Sales Privity of Contract Locus Standi Municipal Tender +1 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Cosira Developments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sam Lubbe Investments CC t/a Lubbe Construction

Respondent

Samuel Mandla Lubbe

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have locus standi to claim specific performance against the original seller under successive sale agreements?
  2. 2 Is an order for specific performance appropriate in the circumstances, considering public policy and municipal procedures?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant lacked locus standi to claim specific performance against the council because there was no privity of contract between the applicant and the council. The August 2005 agreements were distinct from the June 2005 agreements between Lubbe and the council, and no tripartite agreement was concluded to link the applicant directly to the council. The court held that only immediate parties to each sale have enforceable rights against each other. Even if locus standi were established, the court would have exercised its discretion to refuse specific performance, as granting such relief would undermine the council's black economic empowerment policy, contravene...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.