Solomon v Graham and Others (22460/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 44 (4 March 2015)

Solomon v Graham and Others (22460/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 44 (4 March 2015)

The court found that the respondent's defence regarding insufficient notice under the lex commissoria was without merit, as the notice of motion itself constituted a demand and afforded the respondent more than the required 14 days to purge default. Furthermore, all contractual time periods for payment had expired, making the claim for payment due and payable. The respondent's asserted counterclaims were raised late, lacked bona fides, and were not brought by way of a counter application. The court concluded that there was no justification for further delay in payment and granted the applicant's claim for the balance of the purchase price, together with interest and costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Ivan Solomon; Respondent: Ricardo Giovanni Graham; Respondent: Executives Online South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Executives Online North (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2015
Case Number
22460/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Sale of Shares, Specific Performance, Acknowledgement of Debt, Lex Commissoria, Contractual Notice Period
Commercial and Corporate Sale of Shares Specific Performance Acknowledgement of Debt Lex Commissoria Contractual Notice Period

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Solomon

Applicant

Ricardo Giovanni Graham

Respondent

Executives Online South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Executives Online North (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of the balance of the purchase price under the sale of shares agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defence that the claim is premature due to insufficient notice under the lex commissoria is valid.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's asserted counterclaims justify a reduction of the amount due.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's defence regarding insufficient notice under the lex commissoria was without merit, as the notice of motion itself constituted a demand and afforded the respondent more than the required 14 days to purge default. Furthermore, all contractual time periods for payment had expired, making the claim for payment due and payable. The respondent's asserted counterclaims were raised late, lacked bona fides, and were not brought by way of a counter application. The court concluded that there was no justification for further delay in payment and granted the applicant's claim for the balance of the purchase price, together with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of R600,000, together with interest at 9.5% per annum from 9 February 2014 to date of final payment.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and own client.