Veneska Beleggings BK v Snyman and Another (108/2007) [2009] ZANCHC 23 (24 April 2009)

Veneska Beleggings BK v Snyman and Another (108/2007) [2009] ZANCHC 23 (24 April 2009)

The court found that the agreement of 16 August 2006, as amended by the addendum of 16 January 2007, was valid and binding, and was validly cancelled by the applicant. The respondents did not dispute the existence or validity of the agreements in their papers before Williams J, nor did they challenge the terms or allege non-compliance with suspensive conditions at the relevant time. The respondents are required to return what they received under the agreement, and any payments made are forfeited to the applicant as per the contract. The grounds of appeal advanced by the respondents lack merit, and there are no reasonable prospects of another court coming to a different decision....

Citation
[2009] ZANCHC 23
Parties
Applicant: Veneska Beleggings BK; Respondent: Hendrik Schalk Snyman; Respondent: Adriaan Johannes Cloete
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 April 2009
Case Number
108/2007
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
I Henriques
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Contract Cancellation, Restitution, Forfeiture of Payments
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Contract Cancellation Restitution Forfeiture of Payments

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Veneska Beleggings BK

Applicant

Hendrik Schalk Snyman

Respondent

Adriaan Johannes Cloete

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment of Nduna AJ.
  2. 2 Whether the original agreement of 16 August 2006 and the addendum of 16 January 2007 constituted a valid and binding contract.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are obliged to return the business and assets received under the agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the agreement of 16 August 2006, as amended by the addendum of 16 January 2007, was valid and binding, and was validly cancelled by the applicant. The respondents did not dispute the existence or validity of the agreements in their papers before Williams J, nor did they challenge the terms or allege non-compliance with suspensive conditions at the relevant time. The respondents are required to return what they received under the agreement, and any payments made are forfeited to the applicant as per the contract. The grounds of appeal advanced by the respondents lack merit, and there are no reasonable prospects of another court coming to a different decision....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.