Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation Ltd v Russil Van Der Haer Agencies (Pty) Ltd T/A Damelin College (20083/06) [2010] ZAGPPHC 285 (14 April 2010)
The court found that all grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The Alienation of Land Act was correctly applied in the original judgment. The premises were properly identified in the contract of sale with Alibiprops, which was uncontested. The right of first refusal was enforceable, and the plaintiff did...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPPHC 285
- Parties
- Applicant: Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation Ltd; Respondent: Russil Van Der Haer Agencies (Pty) Ltd T/A Damelin College
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 20083/06
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment for Plaintiff
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- Judges
- Ebersohn
- Legal Topics
- Alienation of Land Act, Identification of Premises, Right of First Refusal, Damages, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Highveld Steel And Vanadium Corporation Ltd
Applicant
Russil Van Der Haer Agencies (Pty) Ltd T/A Damelin College
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment for Plaintiff
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Alienation of Land Act was correctly applied in the original judgment.
- 2 Whether the premises were properly identified and whether the right of first refusal constituted an enforceable pactum de contrahendo.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff succeeded in proving its damages.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that all grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The Alienation of Land Act was correctly applied in the original judgment. The premises were properly identified in the contract of sale with Alibiprops, which was uncontested. The right of first refusal was enforceable, and the plaintiff did not seek transfer but damages, which were adequately proven and addressed in the original judgment. The respondent's arguments did not raise any prospects of success on appeal.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOITH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG DIVISION)
CASE NO.: 20083/06
DATE: 14 APRIL 2010
In the matter between
HIGHVF.LD STEEl, AND VANADIUM
CORPORATION LTD........................................................................................Applicant
And
RUSS1L VAN DER HAER AGENCIES (PTY)
LTD. TRADING AS DAMELIN COLLEGE.............................................Respondent
CORAM: EBERSOHN AJ
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON 14 APRIL 2010
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
EBERSOHN AJ.
[I] In this judgment the parties will he referred to as in convention.
[2] After hearing evidence and argument the Court granted judgment in favour of the plaintiff with costs.
[3] The defendant filed a notice of application for leave to appeal. In the notice three proposed grounds were stated.
[14] AD FIRST GROUND.
The defendant repeats the same points raised in argument regarding the Alienation of Land Act. after evidence was heard and this aspect was fully dealt with in the written judgment and it is not necessary to deal with it again.
[5] AD SECOND GROUND:
In this ground it is the contention of the defendant that the premises were noi properly identified and that the right of first refusal was a pactum de contrahcndo which was unenforceable. The premises were properly identified and the defendant apparently lost sight of the contract of sale with Alibiprops. annexure "F" to the particulars of claim which was uncontroverted. The said agreement puts paid to any argument that the premises were not identifiable and not identified. Tne plaintiff did not sue for transfer but sued for damages, a fact the defendant didn't grasp.
[6] AD THIRD GROUND:
It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff did not succeed in proving its damages. This aspect was fully dealt with in the written judgment and summed up in paragraph [44) thereof.
[71 There are no prospects of success with the proposed appeal and the Court accordingly makes the following order:
1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs
P.Z. EBERSOHN
ACTING .11 DCF OF THF HIGH COURT
Applicant's counsel Adv. A.E. BHAM SC
Applicant's attorneys DENEYS REITZ
c\o MOTHLE JOOMA SABDIA INC Ref.MR. E. JOOMA TEL. 012X362 3137
Respondent's counsel Art. A.P. BRANDMULLER
Respondent's attorneys: BRANDMULLERS
c\o ROOTH & WESSELS Ref. A.T.LAMEY /AM/B22672 TEL. 012 X 452 4118