Fraqur 149 (Pty) Ltd v Engen Petroleum Limited and Others (UM62/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 28 (20 May 2021)

Fraqur 149 (Pty) Ltd v Engen Petroleum Limited and Others (UM62/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 28 (20 May 2021)

The applicant was justified in launching the urgent application due to the first respondent's delay in appointing a buyer and extending the lease, which would have resulted in financial loss. The first respondent only acted after legal proceedings were instituted, confirming the necessity of the application. The first respondent's urgent interlocutory application for reinstatement was unnecessary, as the matter had not been removed from the roll and advice from the Registrar was ignored. The applicant was successful in both applications, and there is no reason why the first respondent should not pay the costs incurred.

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Fraqur 149 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Engen Petroleum Limited; Respondent: Aakila Carrim; Respondent: Abdul Aziz Merchant
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2021
Case Number
UM62/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Main and Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Costs awarded against the first respondent for both the main and interlocutory applications.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Costs Award, Lease Agreement, Urgent Application, Removal From Roll, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs Award Lease Agreement Urgent Application Removal From Roll Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fraqur 149 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Engen Petroleum Limited

Respondent

Aakila Carrim

Respondent

Abdul Aziz Merchant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination Following Main and Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent should pay the costs of the main application and the urgent interlocutory application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was justified in launching the urgent application to extend the lease and compel the selection of a buyer.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's urgent interlocutory application for reinstatement was necessary and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was justified in launching the urgent application due to the first respondent's delay in appointing a buyer and extending the lease, which would have resulted in financial loss. The first respondent only acted after legal proceedings were instituted, confirming the necessity of the application. The first respondent's urgent interlocutory application for reinstatement was unnecessary, as the matter had not been removed from the roll and advice from the Registrar was ignored. The applicant was successful in both applications, and there is no reason why the first respondent should not pay the costs incurred.

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the first respondent for both the main and interlocutory applications.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the main application in UM62/2020 and the costs of the interlocutory application in UM227/2020 on an opposed basis.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of 7 May 2020.