Squid Packers (Pty) Ltd v Ollemans (328/2001) [2002] ZASCA 139; [2003] 1 All SA 98 (SCA) (25 November 2002)

Squid Packers (Pty) Ltd v Ollemans (328/2001) [2002] ZASCA 139; [2003] 1 All SA 98 (SCA) (25 November 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Robberg, represented by the respondent, was contractually obliged to transfer the fishing permits to the appellant upon demand. The arrangement for the permits to remain in Robberg's name was solely to accommodate the respondent's tax affairs while employed by the appellant, and did not alter the appellant's entitlement. Demand was made, and prescription did not extinguish the claim as it ran only from demand. The evidence established a tacit agreement that the Renata permits were also the appellant's property and transferable on demand. The respondent breached his obligations by causing Robberg to sell the rights to Striker. On causation, the Court...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Squid Packers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Louis Ollemans
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2002
Case Number
328/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Judgment granted against the respondent for damages and interest.
Judges
Howie, Schutz, Mpati, Nugent, Heher
Legal Topics
Transfer of Fishing Permits, Breach of Contract, Damages Assessment, Prescription, Suretyship Liability
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Transfer of Fishing Permits Breach of Contract Damages Assessment Prescription Suretyship Liability

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Squid Packers (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Louis Ollemans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as surety for Robberg Trawlers, is liable for damages arising from the sale and transfer of fishing permits to a third party.
  2. 2 Whether the rights to fishing permits were contractually required to be transferred to the appellant upon demand.
  3. 3 Whether prescription extinguished the appellant's rights to claim transfer of the permits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Robberg, represented by the respondent, was contractually obliged to transfer the fishing permits to the appellant upon demand. The arrangement for the permits to remain in Robberg's name was solely to accommodate the respondent's tax affairs while employed by the appellant, and did not alter the appellant's entitlement. Demand was made, and prescription did not extinguish the claim as it ran only from demand. The evidence established a tacit agreement that the Renata permits were also the appellant's property and transferable on demand. The respondent breached his obligations by causing Robberg to sell the rights to Striker. On causation, the Court...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Judgment granted against the respondent for damages and interest.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is granted, with costs to be paid by the appellant, including costs of opposition.
  • The appeal is allowed, with costs.