Meecham v Naude and Another (41450/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 722 (9 October 2018)

Meecham v Naude and Another (41450/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 722 (9 October 2018)

The court found that the probabilities favoured the defendants' version. The email of 10 April 2013 was only applicable in the event of a sale to G3 Consortium, not to the outright sale to the Department for R30 million. The evidence showed that at the time of the email, only a partial sale was contemplated, and the Department was not yet a confirmed buyer for the whole property. The subsequent meeting and the second statement prepared and signed by both parties constituted a new agreement, under which Naude was entitled to R7 million in profit and R2,516,339.50 for expenses. The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Naude was only entitled to R6 million or that the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 722
Parties
Plaintiff: James John Meecham; Defendant: Wynand Naude; Defendant: Wynand Naude Incorporated
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2018
Case Number
41450/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs. Defendant ordered to pay wasted costs incurred by plaintiff in making copies at defendant's request which were not utilized during the trial.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Agreement, Contract Amendment, Profit Sharing, Repudiation, Wasted Costs
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Joint Venture Agreement Contract Amendment Profit Sharing Repudiation Wasted Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James John Meecham

Plaintiff

Wynand Naude

Defendant

Wynand Naude Incorporated

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is bound by the email of 10 April 2013 and therefore only entitled to R6 million.
  2. 2 Whether the parties entered into a new agreement on the day the profits were shared.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the probabilities favoured the defendants' version. The email of 10 April 2013 was only applicable in the event of a sale to G3 Consortium, not to the outright sale to the Department for R30 million. The evidence showed that at the time of the email, only a partial sale was contemplated, and the Department was not yet a confirmed buyer for the whole property. The subsequent meeting and the second statement prepared and signed by both parties constituted a new agreement, under which Naude was entitled to R7 million in profit and R2,516,339.50 for expenses. The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Naude was only entitled to R6 million or that the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs. Counterclaim dismissed with costs. Defendant ordered to pay wasted costs incurred by plaintiff in making copies at defendant's request which were not utilized during the trial.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
  • The counterclaim is dismissed with costs.