Van Eden v Delcloo and Another (36792/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1155 (8 September 2023)

Van Eden v Delcloo and Another (36792/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1155 (8 September 2023)

The court found that neither party had presented their case with sufficient clarity or supporting evidence to resolve the factual disputes on affidavit. The applicant failed to provide detailed evidence of his contributions and improvements, while the respondent's version was found to be untenable in light of objective evidence such as the website and photographs. Given the irreconcilable disputes of fact and the lack of confirmatory affidavits and documentary proof, the court determined that the matter could not be justly decided on the papers. Accordingly, the application was postponed sine die and referred for oral evidence on the existence and terms of the alleged partnership...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1155
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Cornelius Van Eden; Respondent: Filip Robert Christiana Delcloo; Respondent: Bark at the Moon (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2023
Case Number
36792/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application postponed sine die and referred for oral evidence on specified issues; costs reserved.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Partnership Dispute, Oral Evidence in Motion Proceedings, Business Venture Agreement, Discovery of Documents
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Partnership Dispute Oral Evidence in Motion Proceedings Business Venture Agreement Discovery of Documents

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Cornelius Van Eden

Applicant

Filip Robert Christiana Delcloo

Respondent

Bark at the Moon (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral for Oral Evidence After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership agreement exists between the applicant and the first respondent, and if so, its terms.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant merely assisted the first respondent financially for personal reasons.
  3. 3 The extent of improvements made to the immovable property and each party's contribution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither party had presented their case with sufficient clarity or supporting evidence to resolve the factual disputes on affidavit. The applicant failed to provide detailed evidence of his contributions and improvements, while the respondent's version was found to be untenable in light of objective evidence such as the website and photographs. Given the irreconcilable disputes of fact and the lack of confirmatory affidavits and documentary proof, the court determined that the matter could not be justly decided on the papers. Accordingly, the application was postponed sine die and referred for oral evidence on the existence and terms of the alleged partnership...

Court Disposition

Application postponed sine die and referred for oral evidence on specified issues; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed sine die.
  • The matter is referred for oral evidence before Van der Schyff J on the existence and terms of the alleged partnership agreement and the extent of improvements made by each party.