Veneska Beleggings BK v Snyman and Another (108/07) [2007] ZANCHC 69 (19 October 2007)

Veneska Beleggings BK v Snyman and Another (108/07) [2007] ZANCHC 69 (19 October 2007)

The court found that the circumstances which initially rendered the matter urgent existed in February 2007 when the application was first set down. However, due to three subsequent postponements and interim arrangements between the parties, the status quo had changed. The bottle store, previously closed, was now open and operating, and there was no evidence of lost goodwill. The respondents' financial position was likely improved. The court held that the matter had lost its urgency and should be enrolled in the normal opposed motion roll. Accordingly, the application was struck from the urgent roll with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZANCHC 69
Parties
Applicant: Veneska Beleggings BK; Respondent: Hendrik Schalk Snyman; Respondent: Adriaan Johannes Cloete
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Case Number
108/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck From Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application struck from the urgent roll with costs.
Judges
F E Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Urgent Application Procedure, Sale of Business, Contract Cancellation, Interim Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Application Procedure Sale of Business Contract Cancellation Interim Relief

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

Parties

Veneska Beleggings BK

Applicant

Hendrik Schalk Snyman

Respondent

Adriaan Johannes Cloete

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck From Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was urgent and warranted hearing on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant would be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances justifying urgency still existed at the time of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the circumstances which initially rendered the matter urgent existed in February 2007 when the application was first set down. However, due to three subsequent postponements and interim arrangements between the parties, the status quo had changed. The bottle store, previously closed, was now open and operating, and there was no evidence of lost goodwill. The respondents' financial position was likely improved. The court held that the matter had lost its urgency and should be enrolled in the normal opposed motion roll. Accordingly, the application was struck from the urgent roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the urgent roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll of the urgent court with costs.