Koukoudis and Another v Abrina and Another (20747/2014)
Koukoudis and Another v Abrina and Another (20747/2014) [2016] ZASCA 95; [2016] 3 All SA 398 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 352 (SCA) (2 June 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents failed to prove both the subjective and objective requirements for a claim based on abuse of rights. The evidence did not establish that the appellants acted with the sole or predominant intention to harm the respondents; rather, the objection and appeal were motivated by a legitimate commercial interest in protecting the value and viability of the Mall@Reds shopping centre. The court found that the respondents' case was speculative and lacked cogency, and that the appellants' conduct was not wrongful under South African law. The appeal su…
Source excerpt
- Abuse Of Rights
- Pure Economic Loss
- Wrongfulness
- Township Establishment
- Statutory Objection
- Damages For Delay