Mathee and Another v Aldes Alliance Business Brokers and Another (2424/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 318 (21 September 2012)

Mathee and Another v Aldes Alliance Business Brokers and Another (2424/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 318 (21 September 2012)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that the matter had become moot, as the purchase price sought to be preserved had already been paid out before the applicants gave notice of appeal. The court found no existing or live controversy requiring adjudication. Even if discretion to hear a moot matter existed, the present case did not warrant such exercise, as it was factually distinguishable from cases where conflicting decisions or broader practical effects justified intervention. The applicants were not parties to the October agreement and could not claim rights under it; the November agreement did not revive the October agreement. The intervening parties...

Citation
[2012] ZAWCHC 318
Parties
Applicant: Michel Mathee; Applicant: Marinda Huysamer; Respondent: Aldes Alliance Business Brokers; Respondent: Aides Business Brokers (Franchise) Africa (PTY) LTD; Appellant: Meyer Nel; Appellant: Frederick Van Aarde Nel
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2012
Case Number
2424/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application for Preservation Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, subject to specific cost allocations for postponement and new evidence.
Judges
Baartman
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Contractual Suspensive Conditions, Rectification, Urgent Application, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Interim Interdict Contractual Suspensive Conditions Rectification Urgent Application Costs 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michel Mathee

Applicant

Marinda Huysamer

Applicant

Aldes Alliance Business Brokers

Respondent

Aides Business Brokers (Franchise) Africa (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Meyer Nel

Appellant

Frederick Van Aarde Nel

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application for Preservation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted despite the matter having become moot.
  2. 2 Whether the November agreement constituted a binding contract incorporating the October agreement's terms.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had a protectable right to the purchase price held in trust.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that the matter had become moot, as the purchase price sought to be preserved had already been paid out before the applicants gave notice of appeal. The court found no existing or live controversy requiring adjudication. Even if discretion to hear a moot matter existed, the present case did not warrant such exercise, as it was factually distinguishable from cases where conflicting decisions or broader practical effects justified intervention. The applicants were not parties to the October agreement and could not claim rights under it; the November agreement did not revive the October agreement. The intervening parties...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, subject to specific cost allocations for postponement and new evidence.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The intervening parties are to pay the costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on the first day of the hearing.