Mintails SA Proprietary Limited and Others v Cubenco 192 Proprietary Limited (31038/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 237 (8 September 2014)

Mintails SA Proprietary Limited and Others v Cubenco 192 Proprietary Limited (31038/2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 237 (8 September 2014)

The court found that the respondent's referral to arbitration was not properly formulated and did not disclose a genuine dispute subject to arbitration under the agreement. The respondent's dissatisfaction with the failure to produce the original title deed or proof of cancellation of the mortgage bond could be resolved by obtaining a certified copy or confirmation from the registrar of deeds, and did not amount to an arbitral dispute. The agreement was validly cancelled by the first applicant in accordance with its terms after the respondent failed to pay the purchase price. The respondent's subsequent conduct in unlawfully entering the property and forcibly removing the third...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 237
Parties
Applicant: Mintails SA Proprietary Limited; Applicant: HVH Gold Proprietary Limited; Applicant: Denika Mining and Mineral Processing Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Cubenco 192 Proprietary Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2014
Case Number
31038/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Determination at First Instance
Outcome
Application granted; draft order made an order of court.
Judges
S S Mphahlele
Legal Topics
Sale of Shares, Contract Cancellation, Arbitration Clause, Mortgage Bond, Possession of Property
Commercial and Corporate Land and Property Sale of Shares Contract Cancellation Arbitration Clause Mortgage Bond Possession of Property

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mintails SA Proprietary Limited

Applicant

HVH Gold Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Denika Mining and Mineral Processing Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Cubenco 192 Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Determination at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's referral to arbitration constitutes a valid dispute under the agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the agreement of sale was validly cancelled by the first applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent unlawfully interfered with the third applicant's possession of the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's referral to arbitration was not properly formulated and did not disclose a genuine dispute subject to arbitration under the agreement. The respondent's dissatisfaction with the failure to produce the original title deed or proof of cancellation of the mortgage bond could be resolved by obtaining a certified copy or confirmation from the registrar of deeds, and did not amount to an arbitral dispute. The agreement was validly cancelled by the first applicant in accordance with its terms after the respondent failed to pay the purchase price. The respondent's subsequent conduct in unlawfully entering the property and forcibly removing the third...

Court Disposition

Application granted; draft order made an order of court.

Orders

  • The agreement of sale is declared validly cancelled.
  • The respondent is ordered to vacate the property and restore possession to the third applicant.