Zahos and Others v Anastassopoulos and Others (22/1012) [2022] ZAGPJHC 393 (29 April 2022)

Parties

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Confirmation or Discharge of Interim Order

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether the applicants established a factual and legal basis for the interim interdict in paragraph 3.3 against the opposing respondents.
2. 2 Whether the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right to relief pending the outcome of the expert hearing under the nomination agreements.
3. 3 Whether the ninth respondent, as a software provider, could be bound by the dispute resolution provisions of the nomination agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to place before the court any primary facts to support their fears of interference with business operations by the opposing respondents. Their founding affidavit contained only vague and conclusory allegations, with no evidence of actual or threatened interference. The applicants did not identify any dispute falling within the ambit of the nomination agreements that could be referred to expert determination, nor did they establish that the ninth respondent was bound by those agreements. The absence of primary facts rendered the interim order in paragraph 3.3 unenforceable and void for vagueness. Only the relief relating to the assault by the first respondent was...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi discharged except for relief relating to assault by the first respondent; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

• Paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2 of the interim order dated 11 February 2022 in respect of the first respondent are confirmed.
• Paragraph 3.3 of the interim order is discharged in its entirety.