Pheiffer and Others v About it Pretoria (Pty) Ltd and Others (65188/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 71 (21 February 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 71
- Status
- Ruling
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- T Brenner
- Case number
- 65188/2014
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- T Brenner
- Case number
- 65188/2014
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the agreement dated 22 April 2011 is void for failure to comply with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act. At the time of conclusion, the Pheiffer Family Trust was not registered and Rudi Pheiffer was not authorised to act as trustee. These facts are dispositive, and no factual context can cure the legal defect. The applicants do not enjoy reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor is there any compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The applicants' application for leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2016 is dismissed.
- The applicants are directed to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally.
02
Material facts
Parties
Rudi Pheiffer
Applicant Counsel: Adv JD Maritz SCRudi Pheiffer N.O (in his capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust)
Applicant Counsel: Adv JD Maritz SCCornelia Maria Pheiffer N.O (in her capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust)
Applicant Counsel: Adv JD Maritz SCAbout it Pretoria (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Advocate APJ ElsGerhardus Marthinus Olivier
Respondent Counsel: Advocate APJ ElsGerhardus Marthinus Olivier N.O (in his capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust)
Respondent Counsel: Advocate APJ ElsMadelein Olivier N.O (in her capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust)
Respondent Counsel: Advocate APJ Els03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 10 November 2016.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the agreement dated 22 April 2011 is valid in law.
- 02
Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
- 03
Whether there is any compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants contend that the grounds set out in their notice of application for leave to appeal demonstrate errors in the judgment and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. They argue that the factual context surrounding the agreement dated 22 April 2011 should be considered and that the agreement is not void as found by the court.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintain that the agreement dated 22 April 2011 is void for non-compliance with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act, as the Pheiffer Family Trust was not registered and Rudi Pheiffer was not authorised by the Master of the High Court at the time. They argue that no factual context can cure a void act and that there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Trust Property Control Act, section 6(1)
An agreement is void if it fails to comply with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act, and no factual matrix can validate an act that is void at law.
- 02
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there are reasonable prospects of success or other compelling reasons.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The application for leave to appeal is refused because the agreement dated 22 April 2011 is void for failure to comply with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act. At the time of conclusion, the Pheiffer Family Trust was not registered and Rudi Pheiffer was not authorised to act as trustee. These facts are dispositive, and no factual context can cure the legal defect. The applicants do not enjoy reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor is there any compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted.
Obiter and limits
- It is unnecessary to traverse the various grounds for leave to appeal seriatim, as the central issue is the validity of the agreement.
- There is no need to repeat the grounds for arriving at the decision in this judgment.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The applicants' application for leave to appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 November 2016 is dismissed.
- The applicants are directed to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Ruling
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case number: 65188/2014
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
Date of hearing: 21 February 2017
In the matter between:
RUDI
PHEIFFER First
Applicant
RUDI PHEIFFER N.O
(in his capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust) Second Applicant
CORNELIA MARIA PHEIFFER N.O
(in her capacity as trustee of the Pheiffer Family Trust) Third Applicant
and
ABOUT IT PRETORIA (PTY) LTD First
Respondent
GERHARDUS MARTHINUS OLIVIER Second
Respondent
GERHARDUS MARTHINUS OLIVIER N.O
(in his capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust) Third
Respondent
MADELEIN OLIVIER N.O
(in her capacity as trustee of the Reivilo Trust) Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT IN APPLICANTS' APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
BRENNER AJ
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment delivered on 10 November 2016, and is brought by the above applicants. The applicants served a notice of application for leave to appeal on 28 November 2016 ("the notice").
2. Having duly considered the various grounds adumbrated in the applicants' notice, I disagree.
3. It is not necessary for me to traverse the various grounds ad seriatim. This is because the crisp issue hinges on the validity of the agreement dated 22 April 2011. This agreement is void for failure to comply with section 6(1) of the Trust Property Control Act. Any factual matrix against which it was concluded is toto caelo irrelevant and cannot redeem an act which is void at law.
4. At the time the agreement was concluded, the Pheiffer Family Trust had not been registered and Rudi Pheiffer was not duly authorised to act under letters of authority issued by the Master of the High Court. These facts simpliciter are dispositive of the matter.
5. Suffice it to say that there is no need to repeat the grounds for arriving at my decision in this judgment.
6. In the premises, I am of the view that the applicants do not enjoy a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, and that there is no other compelling reason why an appeal against my judgment should be heard. In my respectful view, leave to appeal should accordingly be refused, with costs following the result.
7. The following order is granted:
a. the applicants' application for leave to appeal against my judgment delivered on 10 November 2016 is dismissed;
b. the applicants are directed to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally.
________
T
BRENNER
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
21 February 2017
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicants: Adv JD Maritz SC
Instructed by: Gerhard Botha and Partners Inc
Counsel for the Respondents: Advocate APJ Els
Instructed by: Van der Merwe and Associates Inc
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.