Cronimet Chrome Mining SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates, In re: Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates v Nell and Others (851/12) [2013] ZASCA 155 (22 November 2013)

Cronimet Chrome Mining SA (Pty) Ltd and Others v Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates, In re: Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates v Nell and Others (851/12) [2013] ZASCA 155 (22 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court's declaratory order regarding substantial compliance with the Estate Agents Act was not appealable. The order did not dispose of a substantial part of the relief claimed nor was it definitive of the rights of the parties, as the main issue—the applicability of the Act to the share transaction—remained unresolved and was not separated for determination. Even if the appeal succeeded on the fidelity fund certificate issue, the underlying dispute regarding the nature of the transaction and the commission claim would persist. The court adopted a pragmatic approach, finding that entertaining the appeal would not lead to a prompt resolution of...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 155
Parties
Appellant: Cronimet Chrome Mining SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Cronimet Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Cronimet Chrome Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates; Defendant: Hendrik Petrus Nell; Defendant: Charlotte Franciena Nell; Defendant: Lourensia Ntswaki Kwenaesele; Defendant: Night Fire Investments 110 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Johan Niemöller; Defendant: Niemcor Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2013
Case Number
851/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Declaratory Order on Separated Issues Under Rule 33(4)
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll as the order was not appealable.
Judges
Cachalia, Malan, Pillay, Van der Merwe, Zondi
Legal Topics
Appealability of Orders, Estate Agents Act, Fidelity Fund Certificate, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Appealability of Orders Estate Agents Act Fidelity Fund Certificate Declaratory Relief

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

Parties

Cronimet Chrome Mining SA (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cronimet Chrome SA (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Cronimet Chrome Properties (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Brodsky Trading 224 CC t/a Platinum Unlimited Estates

Respondent

Hendrik Petrus Nell

Defendant

Charlotte Franciena Nell

Defendant

Lourensia Ntswaki Kwenaesele

Defendant

Night Fire Investments 110 (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Johan Niemöller

Defendant

Niemcor Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Declaratory Order on Separated Issues Under Rule 33(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the high court's declaratory order on substantial compliance with the Estate Agents Act appealable?
  2. 2 Does the order dispose of a substantial part of the relief claimed or definitively resolve the rights of the parties?
  3. 3 Does the separated issue regarding fidelity fund certificates affect the main claim for commission?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court's declaratory order regarding substantial compliance with the Estate Agents Act was not appealable. The order did not dispose of a substantial part of the relief claimed nor was it definitive of the rights of the parties, as the main issue—the applicability of the Act to the share transaction—remained unresolved and was not separated for determination. Even if the appeal succeeded on the fidelity fund certificate issue, the underlying dispute regarding the nature of the transaction and the commission claim would persist. The court adopted a pragmatic approach, finding that entertaining the appeal would not lead to a prompt resolution of...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll as the order was not appealable.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondent and the sellers, including the costs of two counsel.