Trademore (Pty) Ltd v Zam Zam Logistics CC (45 455/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 239 (26 May 2014)

Trademore (Pty) Ltd v Zam Zam Logistics CC (45 455/13) [2014] ZAGPJHC 239 (26 May 2014)

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to exercise a lien over the goods for payment of charges relating to the September 2012 contract, as the goods in question were not the subject matter of that contract. The evidence supported the applicant's contention that payment for the October 2013 contract was only due fourteen days after receipt of the invoice, and no invoice had been presented. Therefore, the respondent's exercise of a lien was premature and invalid. The applicant was entitled to delivery of the goods under the rei vindicatio. The court declined to grant a special costs order, finding no vexatious conduct by the respondent.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 239
Parties
Applicant: Trademore (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Zam Zam Logistics CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2014
Case Number
45 455/13
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application for Delivery of Goods and Costs
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to advise the applicant of the location of the goods and to make them available for collection. Costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
C Reyneke
Legal Topics
Road Carrier Agreement, Lien, Rei Vindicatio, Payment Terms, Final Interdict
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Road Carrier Agreement Lien Rei Vindicatio Payment Terms Final Interdict

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trademore (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Zam Zam Logistics CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application for Delivery of Goods and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent validly exercised a lien over the applicant's goods for payment of freight and other charges.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was entitled to immediate delivery of the goods under the rei vindicatio.
  3. 3 Whether the terms of payment were governed by a written agreement or general practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was not entitled to exercise a lien over the goods for payment of charges relating to the September 2012 contract, as the goods in question were not the subject matter of that contract. The evidence supported the applicant's contention that payment for the October 2013 contract was only due fourteen days after receipt of the invoice, and no invoice had been presented. Therefore, the respondent's exercise of a lien was premature and invalid. The applicant was entitled to delivery of the goods under the rei vindicatio. The court declined to grant a special costs order, finding no vexatious conduct by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to advise the applicant of the location of the goods and to make them available for collection. Costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to advise the applicant of the address of the premises where the 2720 bags of cotton oil cake, or whatever is left and/or not destroyed, are being kept.
  • The respondent is directed to do all things necessary to immediately make available for collection 2720 bags of cotton oil cake, or whatever is left and/or not destroyed.