Zerga and Others v TT Empowerment CC (43785 / 2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 127; [2012] 4 All SA 472 (GSJ) (14 June 2012)

Zerga and Others v TT Empowerment CC (43785 / 2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 127; [2012] 4 All SA 472 (GSJ) (14 June 2012)

The court held that a consent order made an order of court cannot be unilaterally cancelled or disregarded by one party. The only way to set aside such an order is through recognised grounds such as fraud, duress, justus error, misrepresentation, impossibility of performance, or voidness for vagueness, and only by order of a competent court. The applicants failed to establish that clause 3 of the consent order was void for vagueness, as the clause conferred a right of first refusal rather than an option, and the terms to be negotiated did not render it unenforceable. The applicants also failed to prove any breach by the respondent or any ground justifying rescission. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 127
Parties
Applicant: Baheru Tergega Zerga and 20 Others; Respondent: TT Empowerment CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2012
Case Number
43785 / 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief and Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
J P V McNally
Legal Topics
Consent Order, Contract Vagueness, Rescission of Judgment, Right of First Refusal, Eviction, Declaratory Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Consent Order Contract Vagueness Rescission of Judgment Right of First Refusal Eviction Declaratory 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Baheru Tergega Zerga and 20 Others

Applicant

TT Empowerment CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Declaratory Relief and Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a consent order made an order of court can be unilaterally cancelled by one party.
  2. 2 Whether the underlying agreement embodied in the consent order is void for vagueness.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to relief based on alleged breach by the respondent of obligations under the consent order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that a consent order made an order of court cannot be unilaterally cancelled or disregarded by one party. The only way to set aside such an order is through recognised grounds such as fraud, duress, justus error, misrepresentation, impossibility of performance, or voidness for vagueness, and only by order of a competent court. The applicants failed to establish that clause 3 of the consent order was void for vagueness, as the clause conferred a right of first refusal rather than an option, and the terms to be negotiated did not render it unenforceable. The applicants also failed to prove any breach by the respondent or any ground justifying rescission. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is dismissed with costs.