Freed Sweets CC v Makhubu Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another (11847/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 962 (5 December 2019)

Freed Sweets CC v Makhubu Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Another (11847/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 962 (5 December 2019)

The court found that, although the grounds of appeal were vague and the enrichment claim had been expressly abandoned, the issue regarding the oral agreement was sufficiently clear and confined. The respondent would not be prejudiced if the application was heard on the grounds presented. The court accepted that, in line with the Chenia judgment, all interactions between the parties could be considered to determine whether an oral agreement was concluded, regardless of the specific date pleaded. The court concluded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court could find in favour of the applicant based on the evidence presented at trial, and therefore granted leave to appeal.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 962
Parties
Applicant: Freed Sweets CC; Respondent: Makhubu Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Transnet Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2019
Case Number
11847/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 8 August 2019
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Janse van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Oral Agreement, Leave to Appeal, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 49, Enrichment Claim
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Oral Agreement Leave to Appeal Uniform Rules of Court Rule 49 Enrichment Claim

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Freed Sweets CC

Applicant

Makhubu Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Transnet Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 8 August 2019

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant proved the existence of an oral agreement with the respondent regarding payment of 50% of any VAT rebate received.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal comply with rule 49(1)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's enrichment claim was properly abandoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the grounds of appeal were vague and the enrichment claim had been expressly abandoned, the issue regarding the oral agreement was sufficiently clear and confined. The respondent would not be prejudiced if the application was heard on the grounds presented. The court accepted that, in line with the Chenia judgment, all interactions between the parties could be considered to determine whether an oral agreement was concluded, regardless of the specific date pleaded. The court concluded that there was a reasonable prospect that another court could find in favour of the applicant based on the evidence presented at trial, and therefore granted leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to appeal to a full bench of this court against the judgment and order handed down on 8 August 2019.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.