Section 27 Ridgeprop CC t/a Tile Distributers SA v Sharaf Cargo (Pty) Ltd (12622/08) [2009] ZAKZDHC 39 (19 May 2009)

Section 27 Ridgeprop CC t/a Tile Distributers SA v Sharaf Cargo (Pty) Ltd (12622/08) [2009] ZAKZDHC 39 (19 May 2009)

The court found that the respondent was entitled to exercise a general lien over the Bill of Lading and the goods in terms of clause 38 of the Standard Trading Terms and Conditions, as monies were due from the applicant. The applicant's reliance on section 34 of the Constitution was rejected, as the contract required payment before any claim could be instituted. The goods were handled by the respondent on behalf of the applicant, and the Bill of Lading constituted 'goods' under the contract. The respondent did not dispose of the goods, as they were stored at Safmarine Containers Terminal and the respondent held the Bill of Lading. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZAKZDHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Section 27 Ridgeprop CC t/a Tile Distributors SA; Respondent: Sharaf Cargo (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 2009
Case Number
12622/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Lien, Contractual Terms, Bill of Lading, Specific Performance
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Lien Contractual Terms Bill of Lading Specific Performance

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Section 27 Ridgeprop CC t/a Tile Distributors SA

Applicant

Sharaf Cargo (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to exercise a lien over the applicant's goods and Bill of Lading for monies allegedly owed.
  2. 2 Whether the detention of the applicant's goods by the respondent is unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is liable for storage costs after 9 September 2008.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was entitled to exercise a general lien over the Bill of Lading and the goods in terms of clause 38 of the Standard Trading Terms and Conditions, as monies were due from the applicant. The applicant's reliance on section 34 of the Constitution was rejected, as the contract required payment before any claim could be instituted. The goods were handled by the respondent on behalf of the applicant, and the Bill of Lading constituted 'goods' under the contract. The respondent did not dispose of the goods, as they were stored at Safmarine Containers Terminal and the respondent held the Bill of Lading. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.