South Africa Case Law

Webcon Mini Market (Propriety) Limited v Odoko Construction (Propriety) Limited (39391/2020)

Webcon Mini Market (Propriety) Limited v Odoko Construction (Propriety) Limited (39391/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 650 (20 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39391/2020

Judge

Fabricius

The High Court found the winding-up demand defective, held that privileged settlement correspondence was inadmissible, and noted the application withdrawn.

• Winding Up Of Company
• Statutory Demand Defects
• Privileged Communication
• Disputed Indebtedness
• Winding-up
• Statutory-demand

Webcon Mini Market (Proprietary) limited v Odoko Construction (Proprietary) Limited (39391/2020)

Webcon Mini Market (Proprietary) limited v Odoko Construction (Proprietary) Limited (39391/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 640 (20 November 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39391/2020

Judge

Fabricius

The court found that the applicant's statutory demand was defective and that privileged 'without prejudice' correspondence was improperly relied upon. The respondent had paid the major amounts claimed, leaving only a disputed sum, and had tendered payment if proven correct. The indebtedness was bona fide disputed, and the applicant failed to file a replying affidavit. Under these circumstances, the court held that a winding-up order was not appropriate and that each party should bear its own costs. The application was withdrawn by the applicant, and no punitive costs order was granted.

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Disputed Indebtedness
• Privileged Communication
• Costs Order

Maritz and Another v Paulse (1452/2010)

Maritz and Another v Paulse (1452/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 95 (26 April 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1452/2010

Judge

Binns-Ward

The applicants failed to establish that the respondent unlawfully defamed them. The court found that the respondent's statements, to the extent they were made, were either not proven to be defamatory or were made in privileged contexts, such as reporting to municipal officials. Furthermore, the respondent's comments regarding the applicants' alleged unethical conduct in municipal procurement were held to be protected as fair comment on matters of public interest, given the factual context accepted under the Plascon-Evans rule. The applicants did not sufficiently identify or prove the defamato…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Privileged Communication
• Fair Comment
• Municipal Procurement