Geyser and Another v Silver Charm Investements (Edms) Beperk (4705/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 202 (17 November 2010)

Geyser and Another v Silver Charm Investements (Edms) Beperk (4705/10) [2010] ZAGPPHC 202 (17 November 2010)

The court found that the respondent's application for a water licence was not finally refused on the merits but was dismissed as premature due to the empowerment programme not being completed. The respondent had taken steps to address the empowerment requirements and had submitted a new application to the Department of Water Affairs. Clause 4.1 of the sale agreement did not specify a time period for obtaining the licence, and the contract remained alive as long as the application process continued. The applicants were not entitled to a declaration that the agreement had lapsed or to take possession of the water listing. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 202
Parties
Applicant: Frederik Hendrik Geyser; Applicant: Sonia Geyser; Respondent: Silver Charm Investements (Edms) Beperk
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2010
Case Number
4705/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
Botha
Legal Topics
Conditional Sale Agreement, Water Rights Transfer, Suspensive Condition, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Conditional Sale Agreement Water Rights Transfer Suspensive Condition Specific Performance

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederik Hendrik Geyser

Applicant

Sonia Geyser

Applicant

Silver Charm Investements (Edms) Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale agreement (FHG2) between the applicants and respondent lapsed due to non-fulfilment of the suspensive condition regarding the granting of a water licence.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to continue using the water quota pending the outcome of a new licence application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to take possession of the water listing and prevent the respondent from using it.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's application for a water licence was not finally refused on the merits but was dismissed as premature due to the empowerment programme not being completed. The respondent had taken steps to address the empowerment requirements and had submitted a new application to the Department of Water Affairs. Clause 4.1 of the sale agreement did not specify a time period for obtaining the licence, and the contract remained alive as long as the application process continued. The applicants were not entitled to a declaration that the agreement had lapsed or to take possession of the water listing. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, which shall include the costs of a senior advocate.