Sibanye Stillwater Limited v Dovetail Properties (Pty) Limited (00127-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 226 (6 March 2024)

Sibanye Stillwater Limited v Dovetail Properties (Pty) Limited (00127-2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 226 (6 March 2024)

The court found that the previous exception judgment only dealt with a specific paragraph of the impugned agreement and did not consider the other terms or documents now relied upon by Dovetail. Therefore, the matter is not res judicata. On prescription, the court held that Sibanye failed to place sufficient material before the court to conclude that Dovetail's claims have prescribed. Regarding quasi-mutual assent, the court determined that such a claim does not presuppose a mistake but rather whether the conclusion of the agreement and its terms can reasonably be assumed from the other party's words or conduct. The existence of such an agreement can only be determined after evidence is...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 226
Parties
Applicant: Sibanye Stillwater Limited; Respondent: Dovetail Properties (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2024
Case Number
00127/2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Determination of Separated Special Pleas Prior to Full Trial
Outcome
All three special pleas raised by Sibanye are dismissed. Costs awarded to Dovetail, including costs of the separation application and costs of two counsel where employed.
Judges
Wepener
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Prescription Act, Quasi Mutual Assent, Pleading Exceptions, Contractual Repudiation
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Res Judicata Prescription Act Quasi Mutual Assent Pleading Exceptions Contractual Repudiation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sibanye Stillwater Limited

Applicant

Dovetail Properties (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Determination of Separated Special Pleas Prior to Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the previous exception judgment renders the current claim res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claims have prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether a claim based on quasi-mutual assent is cognisable in law on the pleadings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the previous exception judgment only dealt with a specific paragraph of the impugned agreement and did not consider the other terms or documents now relied upon by Dovetail. Therefore, the matter is not res judicata. On prescription, the court held that Sibanye failed to place sufficient material before the court to conclude that Dovetail's claims have prescribed. Regarding quasi-mutual assent, the court determined that such a claim does not presuppose a mistake but rather whether the conclusion of the agreement and its terms can reasonably be assumed from the other party's words or conduct. The existence of such an agreement can only be determined after evidence is...

Court Disposition

All three special pleas raised by Sibanye are dismissed. Costs awarded to Dovetail, including costs of the separation application and costs of two counsel where employed.

Orders

  • Each of the three special pleas is dismissed.
  • Sibanye is to pay the costs of this application including the costs of the application for separation of the issues determined herein, such costs to include the costs of two counsel where so employed.