Tshikovhi v Nemathithi (A09/2015) [2017] ZALMPTHC 10 (28 August 2017)

Tshikovhi v Nemathithi (A09/2015) [2017] ZALMPTHC 10 (28 August 2017)

The appellant's point in limine regarding the respondent's oath was not raised in the notice of appeal and cannot be entertained. The respondent was not required to file a replication as she only denied the allegations in the appellant's plea, and no new facts were introduced. The evidence showed that no valid settlement agreement was reached regarding the alternative site, as the respondent did not accept the appellant's offer and settlement negotiations collapsed over legal costs. The appellant was not justified in stopping payment of the cheques, and the respondent was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed. The appeal therefore fails.

Citation
[2017] ZALMPTHC 10
Parties
Appellant: Maanda Godfrey Tshikovhi; Respondent: Luvhengo Portia Nemathithi
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 August 2017
Case Number
A09/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Whole Judgment of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
MF Kganyago, A Lamminga
Legal Topics
Cheque Payment Dispute, Replication Requirement, Settlement Agreement, Property Sale, Pleadings, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Cheque Payment Dispute Replication Requirement Settlement Agreement Property Sale Pleadings Costs Award

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 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maanda Godfrey Tshikovhi

Appellant

Luvhengo Portia Nemathithi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Whole Judgment of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's point in limine regarding the respondent's oath is valid.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was required to file a replication to the appellant's plea.
  3. 3 Whether a valid settlement agreement existed regarding an alternative site.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's point in limine regarding the respondent's oath was not raised in the notice of appeal and cannot be entertained. The respondent was not required to file a replication as she only denied the allegations in the appellant's plea, and no new facts were introduced. The evidence showed that no valid settlement agreement was reached regarding the alternative site, as the respondent did not accept the appellant's offer and settlement negotiations collapsed over legal costs. The appellant was not justified in stopping payment of the cheques, and the respondent was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed. The appeal therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.