Davids and Others v Louw and Others (A525/2015, 4832/2014) [2016] ZAWCHC 140 (27 October 2016)

Davids and Others v Louw and Others (A525/2015, 4832/2014) [2016] ZAWCHC 140 (27 October 2016)

The court held that the sale agreement for the members' interest in Meermin Visserye CC was not ex lege subject to section 21(2) of the Marine Living Resources Act, and statutory approval was not a suspensive condition for the validity of the sale. The evidence showed that the respondents accepted payments beyond the dates stipulated in the addendum and assisted the appellants in applying for statutory approval in January 2014, indicating acquiescence to oral variations in the payment schedule. The respondents failed to cancel the contract within a reasonable time and continued to accept payments, which amounted to an election to abide by the contract. The breach, if any, was not...

Citation
[2016] ZAWCHC 140
Parties
Appellant: Ashraf Davids; Appellant: Shereen Mathir; Appellant: Moegamat Alie Davids; Appellant: Minister of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries; Appellant: Companies & Intellectual Property Commission; Appellant: Meermin Visserye CC; Respondent: Lya Louw; Respondent: Maria Johanna Atkins; Respondent: Maria Blankenberg; Respondent: Maria Magdalena Booysen; Respondent: Magrieta Kamfer; Respondent: Johanna Kamfer; Respondent: Patrick Leonard N.O; Respondent: George Rudolph Whittle N.O; Respondent: Sabina Swartz; Respondent: Johanna Susanna Taylor
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2016
Case Number
A525/2015, 4832/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Whole Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo, After Leave to Appeal Was Granted to the Full Bench.
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the application with costs.
Judges
Le Grange, Steyn, Saldanha
Legal Topics
Sale of Members Interest, Marine Living Resources Act, Contractual Breach, Materiality of Breach, Suspensive Conditions, Empowerment in Fishing Industry
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Sale of Members Interest Marine Living Resources Act Contractual Breach Materiality of Breach Suspensive Conditions Empowerment in Fishing Industry

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraf Davids

Appellant

Shereen Mathir

Appellant

Moegamat Alie Davids

Appellant

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry & Fisheries

Appellant

Companies & Intellectual Property Commission

Appellant

Meermin Visserye CC

Appellant

Lya Louw

Respondent

Maria Johanna Atkins

Respondent

Maria Blankenberg

Respondent

Maria Magdalena Booysen

Respondent

Magrieta Kamfer

Respondent

Johanna Kamfer

Respondent

Patrick Leonard N.O

Respondent

George Rudolph Whittle N.O

Respondent

Sabina Swartz

Respondent

Johanna Susanna Taylor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against the Whole Judgment and Order of the Court a Quo, After Leave to Appeal Was Granted to the Full Bench.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale agreement for the members' interest in Meermin Visserye CC was subject to section 21(2) of the Marine Living Resources Act ex lege.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants materially breached the sale agreement and addendum by underpaying the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were entitled to cancel the sale agreement due to alleged breach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the sale agreement for the members' interest in Meermin Visserye CC was not ex lege subject to section 21(2) of the Marine Living Resources Act, and statutory approval was not a suspensive condition for the validity of the sale. The evidence showed that the respondents accepted payments beyond the dates stipulated in the addendum and assisted the appellants in applying for statutory approval in January 2014, indicating acquiescence to oral variations in the payment schedule. The respondents failed to cancel the contract within a reasonable time and continued to accept payments, which amounted to an election to abide by the contract. The breach, if any, was not...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the application with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.