Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd v Capper NO and Others (24218/2013) [2017] ZAGPJHC 305 (18 October 2017)

Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd v Capper NO and Others (24218/2013) [2017] ZAGPJHC 305 (18 October 2017)

The court found that the sale agreement was void and not binding on the trust, as the second defendant lacked written authority from the other trustees to enter into the agreement. Clause 12.1 of the sale agreement did not render the second defendant personally liable as purchaser or surety, nor did it entitle the plaintiff to treat him as such. The plaintiff's claim for payment of the purchase price and interest was, in substance, a claim for damages for breach of warranty, but the plaintiff failed to prove its damages, as no evidence of the property's market value was led. The tender to transfer the property to the second defendant did not discharge the plaintiff's onus to prove damages...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 305
Parties
Plaintiff: Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Dene Capper N.O.; Defendant: Dene Capper; Defendant: Iprotect Trustees (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2017
Case Number
24218/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims against all defendants dismissed with costs.
Judges
M du P Van der Nest
Legal Topics
Alienation of Land Act, Trustee Authority, Breach of Warranty, Damages Measurement, Specific Performance, Sectional Titles Act
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Alienation of Land Act Trustee Authority Breach of Warranty Damages Measurement Specific Performance Sectional Titles 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goldex 16 (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Dene Capper N.O.

Defendant

Dene Capper

Defendant

Iprotect Trustees (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale agreement entered into by the second defendant on behalf of the trust is binding on the trust.
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant is personally liable under clause 12.1 of the sale agreement for the amounts claimed.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has proved damages arising from breach of warranty by the second defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sale agreement was void and not binding on the trust, as the second defendant lacked written authority from the other trustees to enter into the agreement. Clause 12.1 of the sale agreement did not render the second defendant personally liable as purchaser or surety, nor did it entitle the plaintiff to treat him as such. The plaintiff's claim for payment of the purchase price and interest was, in substance, a claim for damages for breach of warranty, but the plaintiff failed to prove its damages, as no evidence of the property's market value was led. The tender to transfer the property to the second defendant did not discharge the plaintiff's onus to prove damages...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims against all defendants dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim against the first and third defendants is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel where employed.
  • The plaintiff’s claim against the second defendant is dismissed with costs, including costs of senior counsel where employed.