Edcar Rubber Liners CC and Others v Rema Tip Top Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (24615/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 169 (24 June 2016)

Edcar Rubber Liners CC and Others v Rema Tip Top Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (24615/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 169 (24 June 2016)

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the equipment. The oral agreement alleged by the applicants was not sufficiently proved, and the written agreement between SRP and the first respondent, dated 16 September 2009, expressly transferred ownership to the first respondent before the applicants could acquire it. The parol evidence rule precludes reliance on extrinsic evidence to alter the terms of the written agreement. The applicants' evidence was contradictory and speculative, and the requirements for an interim interdict were not met. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicants, as the equipment is immovable and the risk of destruction or diminution in...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 169
Parties
Applicant: Edcar Rubber Liners CC (In Liquidation); Applicant: Surmany, Albert Ivan N.O; Applicant: Buwa, Patrick Dumisani N.O; Applicant: Cowin, Monica Gezina N.O; Respondent: Rema Tip Top Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: John Davies Pipeline Services CC; Respondent: Marques, Miguel; Respondent: Davies, John Robert; Respondent: Problast (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2016
Case Number
24615/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Determination of Ownership in Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van der Linde
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Ownership Dispute, Parol Evidence Rule, Movable Property, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Land and Property Interim Interdict Ownership Dispute Parol Evidence Rule Movable Property Balance of Convenience

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

Parties

Edcar Rubber Liners CC (In Liquidation)

Applicant

Surmany, Albert Ivan N.O

Applicant

Buwa, Patrick Dumisani N.O

Applicant

Cowin, Monica Gezina N.O

Applicant

Rema Tip Top Holdings SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

John Davies Pipeline Services CC

Respondent

Marques, Miguel

Respondent

Davies, John Robert

Respondent

Problast (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Pending Determination of Ownership in Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie right to ownership of the autoclave and boiler pending trial.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the written agreement between SRP and the first respondent transferred ownership before the applicants could acquire it.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to the equipment. The oral agreement alleged by the applicants was not sufficiently proved, and the written agreement between SRP and the first respondent, dated 16 September 2009, expressly transferred ownership to the first respondent before the applicants could acquire it. The parol evidence rule precludes reliance on extrinsic evidence to alter the terms of the written agreement. The applicants' evidence was contradictory and speculative, and the requirements for an interim interdict were not met. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicants, as the equipment is immovable and the risk of destruction or diminution in...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for an interim interdict is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.