IFU Training Institute (Pty) Ltd v Mining Qualifications Authority and Another (1464/18) [2018] ZANCHC 43 (27 June 2018)

IFU Training Institute (Pty) Ltd v Mining Qualifications Authority and Another (1464/18) [2018] ZANCHC 43 (27 June 2018)

The court found that the order dated 13 June 2018 was taken by agreement between the parties and not by default or error, and there was no basis to set it aside. The applicant failed to provide an affidavit from its attorney to substantiate the lack of mandate claim. The SLA did not provide for a payment on 01 April 2018, and the applicant failed to establish a mistake or a basis for rectification. Rectification cannot be resolved in urgent motion proceedings and must be claimed by action. The applicant did not prove that the tranches had not been paid or that the first respondent was in breach of the court order dated 22 March 2017. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZANCHC 43
Parties
Applicant: IFU Training Institute (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mining Qualifications Authority; Respondent: Sheriff of the Court, Johannesburg North
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2018
Case Number
1464/18
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Service Level Agreement, Rectification of Contract, Writ of Execution, Urgent Interdict, Variation of Court Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Service Level Agreement Rectification of Contract Writ of Execution Urgent Interdict Variation of Court Order

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IFU Training Institute (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mining Qualifications Authority

Respondent

Sheriff of the Court, Johannesburg North

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of court dated 13 June 2018 should be set aside or declared void.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is obliged to make quarterly payments to the applicant under the Service Level Agreement and the court order dated 22 March 2017.
  3. 3 Whether the Service Level Agreement should be rectified to provide for a tranche payment on 01 April 2018.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order dated 13 June 2018 was taken by agreement between the parties and not by default or error, and there was no basis to set it aside. The applicant failed to provide an affidavit from its attorney to substantiate the lack of mandate claim. The SLA did not provide for a payment on 01 April 2018, and the applicant failed to establish a mistake or a basis for rectification. Rectification cannot be resolved in urgent motion proceedings and must be claimed by action. The applicant did not prove that the tranches had not been paid or that the first respondent was in breach of the court order dated 22 March 2017. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.