Muldery v Durban Concrete Fencing CC t/a Durban Concrete Fencing (12338/2010) [2011] ZAKZDHC 79 (4 November 2011)

Muldery v Durban Concrete Fencing CC t/a Durban Concrete Fencing (12338/2010) [2011] ZAKZDHC 79 (4 November 2011)

The court found that the applicant had established on the papers that he brought the moulds listed in the inventory to the respondent's premises and that he remained the owner of those moulds. The respondent's assertion that it had purchased the moulds was unsupported by admissible evidence and contradicted by the correspondence between the parties. The payment of R63,000 in 2007 was not shown to relate to the moulds in question, and there was no evidence of any agreement to transfer ownership. The applicant was therefore entitled to remove his moulds from the respondent's premises.

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 79
Parties
Applicant: Andre Muldery; Respondent: DCF Concrete Products CC t/a Durban Concrete Fencing
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2011
Case Number
12338/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Ownership and Removal of Moulds
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Ownership of Movable Property, Interim Relief, Urgent Application Procedure, Business Partnership Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Ownership of Movable Property Interim Relief Urgent Application Procedure Business Partnership Dispute

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

Parties

Andre Muldery

Applicant

DCF Concrete Products CC t/a Durban Concrete Fencing

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Ownership and Removal of Moulds

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant brought the moulds listed in the inventory to the respondent's premises when he joined the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant retained ownership of those moulds or whether ownership passed to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established on the papers that he brought the moulds listed in the inventory to the respondent's premises and that he remained the owner of those moulds. The respondent's assertion that it had purchased the moulds was unsupported by admissible evidence and contradicted by the correspondence between the parties. The payment of R63,000 in 2007 was not shown to relate to the moulds in question, and there was no evidence of any agreement to transfer ownership. The applicant was therefore entitled to remove his moulds from the respondent's premises.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to allow the applicant to remove from its premises the moulds reflected on the inventory annexed to the notice of motion and marked 'A'.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.