Panatel CC t/a Panasonic Business Systems v Putter and Others (2528/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 250 (14 August 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAFSHC 250
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M. H. Rampai
- Case number
- 2528/2015
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M. H. Rampai
- Case number
- 2528/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court granted the order as the respondents had consented to the delivery of the items listed in the sheriff's inventory to the applicant's attorney. The matter was unopposed, and the applicant's entitlement was not disputed. The court was satisfied that the order was justified under the circumstances.
Court disposition
Order granted in favour of the applicant; respondents to deliver the items listed in the sheriff's inventory to the applicant's attorney.
Orders
- The respondents are ordered to hand over to the applicant's attorney the items as listed in the inventory by the sheriff.
02
Material facts
Parties
Panatel CC t/a Panasonic Business Systems
Applicant Counsel: Matsepes IncorporatedIsabella Putter
Respondent Counsel: Kramer, Weihmann JoubertBersalom (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua
Respondent Counsel: Kramer, Weihmann JoubertCarospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Free State and Northern Cape
Respondent Counsel: Kramer, Weihmann Joubert03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Unopposed Motion
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant is entitled to delivery of the items listed in the sheriff's inventory.
- 02
Whether the respondents have consented to the order sought by the applicant.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought an order for the delivery of items listed in the sheriff's inventory, asserting entitlement and relying on the respondents' consent to the relief sought.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not oppose the application and consented to the order for delivery of the items as listed in the sheriff's inventory.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
General principles of South African civil procedure
Where parties consent to an order, the court may grant the relief sought without opposition.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court granted the order as the respondents had consented to the delivery of the items listed in the sheriff's inventory to the applicant's attorney. The matter was unopposed, and the applicant's entitlement was not disputed. The court was satisfied that the order was justified under the circumstances.
Court disposition
Order granted in favour of the applicant; respondents to deliver the items listed in the sheriff's inventory to the applicant's attorney.
- The respondents are ordered to hand over to the applicant's attorney the items as listed in the inventory by the sheriff.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION BLOEMFONTEIN
Case no.: 2528/2015
In the matter between:
PANATEL CC t/a PANASONIC BUSINESS SYSTEMS
(Reg No. 2004/044647/23)
Applicant
and
ISABELLA
PUTTER 1st Respondent
BERSALOM (PTY) LTD t/a NASHUA
(Reg No. 1971/004863/07)
2nd Respondent
CAROSPAN (PTY) LTD t/a NASHUA FREE STATE
AND NORTHERN CAPE (Reg No. 2012/001649/07) 3rd Respondent
JUDGMENT BY: RAMPAI,
J
HEARD ON:
30 JULY 2015
REQUEST:
14 AUGUST 2015
REASONS
The matter was on the unopposed court roll on Thursday 30 July 2015. Counsel for the applicant persuaded me to make the order. The order was justified seeing that the respondents consented that the items as listed in the inventory by the sheriff be handed over to the applicant’s attorney.
Signed in Bloemfontein on 19 Augustus 2015.
______
M. H. RAMPAI, J
Kramer, Weihmann Joubert
Attorneys for the respondents
Matsepes Incorporated
Attorneys for the applicants
/eb
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.