Corona v Zimbabwe Iron & Steel Co Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Goldin JA, James JA and Davies JA
• Judgment Date: 12 October 1984
• Citation: 1985 (2) SA 423 (TkA)
• Hearing Date: 09 October 1984
• Court: Transkei Appellate Division

Goldin JA:

This is an appeal against a judgment for provisional

Goldin JA

A sentence based on a foreign judgment. For convenience I will refer to appellant as defendant and to the respondent as plaintiff, in which capacities they appeared in the General Division of this honourable Court.

On 15 September 1982, the High Court of Zimbabwe granted B plaintiff leave to sue defendant by edictal citation as well as an order attaching certain immovable property to found jurisdiction against defendant. In an interdict served upon defendant, plaintiff alleged that, in about December 1981, defendant:

"(a)

acting on his own behalf, or

(b)

C acting for and on behalf of Air Halers (Pvt) Ltd, a company incorporated with limited liability under the laws of Zimbabwe (hereinafter called 'Air Halers'), or

(c)

acting on behalf of an undisclosed principal now known to be Air Halers,

agreed to sell to plaintiff motor vehicles for the total price of $82 430."

D It is then alleged that, in pursuance of the said agreement, plaintiff duly paid the sum of $82 430 to the defendant "acting in one of the capacities aforesaid" and that "defendant and Air Halers" failed to deliver the said vehicles.

Plaintiff also alleged that in November or December 1981 E plaintiff paid to the defendant "acting in one of the capacities aforesaid the sum of $11 706,50" in the bona fide but mistaken belief that the said sum was due and that defendant "acting in one of the capacities aforesaid" acknowledged indebtedness in that sum, but which has not been paid.

Plaintiff claimed as against both defendant and Air Halers F "jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved" the said amounts.

On 7 December 1982 judgment was "entered for the plaintiff" in respect of both amounts together with interests and costs.

It is relevant to note, firstly, that Air Halers - a separate persona - was not a party in this action which was G confined to a claim against the defendant. Secondly, that plaintiff alleged personal liability on the part of the defendant and that he was liable by reason of acting in the other capacities as agent. It is not alleged how he rendered himself liable if he acted "for and on behalf" of a company. Thirdly, that, while relief was claimed against "both the defendant and Air Halers jointly and severally", it is not H clear how judgment could be claimed against Air Halers who was not a party in the action. It is not alleged that the contract was with them jointly but with either the one or the other. Finally, despite the claim for joint liability...