Tswelokgotso Trading Enterprise CC v Airports Company of South Africa Soc Limited (16283/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 599 (8 September 2017)

Tswelokgotso Trading Enterprise CC v Airports Company of South Africa Soc Limited (16283/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 599 (8 September 2017)

The court found that the contract between the parties commenced on 17 June 2013 and ended on 16 June 2016, as evidenced by the conduct of both parties and the payment of invoices. The applicant's amended relief seeking a declaratory order that the contract had not yet commenced was inconsistent with its prior sworn statements and the facts. The application for committal for contempt was dismissed as academic, since the contract and the interim interdict had expired. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order but ordered costs in favour of the respondent, including the costs of two counsel, due to the complexity and nature of the proceedings.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 599
Parties
Applicant: Tswelokgotso Trading Enterprise CC; Respondent: Airports Company of South Africa SOC Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2017
Case Number
16283/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Both the application for a declaratory order and the application for committal for contempt are dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
LM Grenfell
Legal Topics
Declaratory Relief, Contract Commencement, Contempt of Court, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Declaratory Relief Contract Commencement Contempt of Court Costs Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tswelokgotso Trading Enterprise CC

Applicant

Airports Company of South Africa SOC Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract between the parties had commenced and its duration.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a declaratory order that the contract has not yet commenced.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's board members should be committed for contempt of previous court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the contract between the parties commenced on 17 June 2013 and ended on 16 June 2016, as evidenced by the conduct of both parties and the payment of invoices. The applicant's amended relief seeking a declaratory order that the contract had not yet commenced was inconsistent with its prior sworn statements and the facts. The application for committal for contempt was dismissed as academic, since the contract and the interim interdict had expired. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order but ordered costs in favour of the respondent, including the costs of two counsel, due to the complexity and nature of the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Both the application for a declaratory order and the application for committal for contempt are dismissed. Costs are awarded to the respondent, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for a declaratory order launched on 28 February 2016, as amended, is dismissed.
  • The application for committal of board members of the respondent for contempt of the orders of Jansen J and de Vos J is dismissed.