BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (EL848/2017; ECD 2148/2017) [2019] ZAECELLC 21 (5 September 2019)

BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (EL848/2017; ECD 2148/2017) [2019] ZAECELLC 21 (5 September 2019)

The court held that the order of constitutional invalidity granted in the previous judgment did not have the effect of divesting the applicant of any rights under the lease contract, except as specifically declared invalid. The supplementation was necessary to clarify the scope of the invalidity and to prevent unintended consequences affecting the applicant's contractual entitlements. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application as its opposition was not justified.

Citation
[2019] ZAECELLC 21
Parties
Applicant: BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eastern Cape Development Corporation
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
EL848/2017; ECD 2148/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Supplementary Order Following Prior Judgment
Outcome
Supplementary order granted; applicant's contractual rights preserved except as declared invalid; respondent to pay costs.
Judges
I T Stretch
Legal Topics
Constitutional Invalidity, Lease Contract Rights, Supplementary Orders
Constitutional Law Land and Property Constitutional Invalidity Lease Contract Rights Supplementary Orders

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BW Bright Water Way Props (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Eastern Cape Development Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Supplementary Order Following Prior Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of constitutional invalidity affects the applicant's rights under the lease contract.
  2. 2 Whether the previous order required supplementation to clarify the effect on contractual rights.
  3. 3 Responsibility for costs of the supplementary application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order of constitutional invalidity granted in the previous judgment did not have the effect of divesting the applicant of any rights under the lease contract, except as specifically declared invalid. The supplementation was necessary to clarify the scope of the invalidity and to prevent unintended consequences affecting the applicant's contractual entitlements. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application as its opposition was not justified.

Court Disposition

Supplementary order granted; applicant's contractual rights preserved except as declared invalid; respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The order of this Court dated 26 July 2019 is supplemented by the addition, after paragraph (b), of the following: '(c) The order of constitutional invalidity in paragraph (b) above does not have the effect of divesting the applicant of any rights to which it is entitled under the lease contract, but for the...
  • The order of 26 July 2019 at paragraph (c) is renumbered as paragraph (d).