Strang Investments No.1 (Pty) Ltd and Ano v Bidvest Group Ltd and Others [2005] ZAGPHC 367; 68/02/01 (5 August 2005)
The court held that the plaintiff had entered into a clear and unequivocal deed of cession, transferring its rights to any dividend to another party. As a result, the plaintiff no longer had any legal entitlement to the dividend in question. The argument that the claim could be pursued as an enrichment action was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] ZAGPHC 367
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Strang Investments No.1 (Pty) Limited and Ano; Defendant: Bidvest Group Limited and Others
- Court
- High Courts - Gauteng
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 7868/02
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Trial / Adjudication of Special Plea
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's claim dismissed; special plea upheld.
- Judges
- Willis
- Legal Topics
- Cession of Rights, Enrichment Action, Dividend Claim
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Strang Investments No.1 (Pty) Limited and Ano
Plaintiff
Bidvest Group Limited and Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Adjudication of Special Plea
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff can claim a dividend after ceding its rights to another party.
- 2 Whether an enrichment action is available to the plaintiff in the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the plaintiff had entered into a clear and unequivocal deed of cession, transferring its rights to any dividend to another party. As a result, the plaintiff no longer had any legal entitlement to the dividend in question. The argument that the claim could be pursued as an enrichment action was rejected, as the plaintiff could not demonstrate that the defendants were enriched at its expense when its rights had already been ceded. The special plea was therefore upheld, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; special plea upheld.
Orders
- The special plea is upheld.
- The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
NOT REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO 7868/02
DATE:2005.08.05
In the matter between
STRANG INVESTMENTS NO.1 (PTY) LIMITED AND ANO..........................................Plaintiffs
and
BIDVEST GROUP LIMITED AND OTHERS............................................................. Defendants
JUDGMENT
WILLIS, J: I have before me the adjudication of a special plea. The underlying causa of the plaintiffs claim is a dividend of R1 487 000 which the first plaintiff avers should have been paid to it. The difficulty for the plaintiff is that it is common cause that there was a written deed of cession entered into between the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff and Strang Investments No.2 (Pty) Limited on 12 September 2002 in which it is clear and unequivocal that the first plaintiff ceded its rights to any dividend which had accrued.
It is to be noted that the deed of cession is not one in respect of which any of the defendants is a party. Nevertheless, nothing turns on this. The essential argument of Mr Bam, who appeared for the plaintiff, is that the claim is based upon an enrichment action, and that therefore the cession is entirely irrelevant. I disagree. If A pays a sum of money to B, which C asserts should have been paid to it, I do not see how C can claim that B has been enriched at C's expense. That essentially is the nub of the case upon which the plaintiffs, according to the argument of Mr Bam, seek to rely. Clearly it has no merit, and in my view the special plea must be upheld.
The following order is made:
1 .The special plea is upheld.
2.The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS: ADV BAM
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS:ADV CASSIM