Wesdev (Edms) Beperk v Anglogold Beperk (LA204/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 82 (26 May 2005)

Wesdev (Edms) Beperk v Anglogold Beperk (LA204/2004) [2005] ZAFSHC 82 (26 May 2005)

The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find in favour of the applicant on either the alleged three-party contract or delictual liability. The evidence showed that the respondent did not intend to be a contracting party and that all parties understood their rights and obligations would be governed by contract. The respondent's involvement was limited to facilitating black economic empowerment through Masakhisane Investment Limited, which held shares and made loans to the company. The court held that there was no consensus between the applicant and respondent regarding a contractual obligation to ensure payment, and no legal duty arose on the...

Citation
[2005] ZAFSHC 82
Parties
Applicant: Wesdev (Edms) Beperk; Respondent: Anglogold Beperk
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2005
Case Number
LA204/2004
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C.H.G VAN DER MERWE
Legal Topics
Contractual Liability, Delictual Liability, Leave to Appeal, Pure Economic Loss
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contractual Liability Delictual Liability Leave to Appeal Pure Economic Loss

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

Parties

Wesdev (Edms) Beperk

Applicant

Anglogold Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether another court could reasonably find in favour of the applicant on the basis of a three-party contract or delictual liability.
  2. 2 Whether consensus existed between the applicant and respondent regarding a contractual obligation to ensure payment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent owed a legal duty to ensure payment to the applicant, giving rise to delictual liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find in favour of the applicant on either the alleged three-party contract or delictual liability. The evidence showed that the respondent did not intend to be a contracting party and that all parties understood their rights and obligations would be governed by contract. The respondent's involvement was limited to facilitating black economic empowerment through Masakhisane Investment Limited, which held shares and made loans to the company. The court held that there was no consensus between the applicant and respondent regarding a contractual obligation to ensure payment, and no legal duty arose on the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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