Business Day - Business Law and Tax Review - - BUSINESS LAW & TAX REVIEW -

mixed re­ac­tions.

La­cock J in­Lons­dale Com­mer­cial Cor­po­ra­tion vs Kim­berly West Di­a­monds Min­ing Cor­po­ra­tion (case no 312/2012) (re­portable) was not per­suaded that the rea­sons ad­vanced in Wedge­wood jus­ti­fied such a dras­tic lim­i­ta­tion on the courts’ ju­ris­dic­tion. The leg­is­la­ture would have made pro­vi­sion, in clear and un­am­bigu­ous terms, for such a lim­i­ta­tion had that been the in­ten­tion.

La­cock J was sup­ported by Phat­shoane J in Phillip­pus Jo­hannes De Bruyn vs Grand­s­e­lect 101 and One Other (case num­ber: 1961/2013) (North­ern Cape High Court) (re­portable), and Koen J in La­n­arco Home Owner As­so­ci­a­tion vs Prospect SA In­vest­ments 42 (Pty) Ltd 2014 JDR 2273 (KZP) (un­re­ported).

This dis­cord in the vary­ing ju­ris­dic­tions has cre­ated un­cer­tainty.

A full bench de­ci­sion, de­liv­ered by judges Gam­ble and Baar­man in Van der Merwe v Du­ra­line (Pro­pri­etary) Lim­ited (case num­ber 7344/2013) (re­portable), seeks to clar­ify the is­sue

Pic­ture: iS­TOCK

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa

© PressReader. All rights reserved.