PCM Mining Supply (Pty) Ltd and another v Manuli Fluiconnecto (Pty) Ltd and another

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Manoim J
• Judgment Date: 12 September 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3429 (GJ)
• Hearing Date: 07 August 2023
• Docket Number: 2023-018601
• Court: Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Manoim J:

[1]

On 30 January 2023, the first respondent, Manuli Fluiconnecto (Pty) Ltd (“Manuli”) published an advertisement calling for expressions of interest from community-based organisations to partner it for the supply of hydraulic hose assemblies at “. . . one of the mining operations in the Greater Tubatse Region.” The client for whom these services is to be provided is not named in the advert. It simply described as “. . . an active mining operation in the Greater Tubatse region.” Despite this anonymity this alarmed the first applicant, PCM Mining Supply Ltd (“PCM”). The reason was that it considered that the partnership advertised was going to be for the supply of hydraulic hoses to the second respondent, Anglo American Platinum Pty Ltd (“Amplats”) and that it (“PCM”) already believed it had a contract with Manuli to be its joint venture partner. I will refer to this as the Amplats project.

[2]

PCM rushed to court on 22 February 2023 with an urgent application for an interim interdict to prevent PCM from proceeding with the Amplats project with any other joint venture partner. The contractual basis on which PCM alleged its claim was based was not clear from the founding affidavit, and Wilson J who heard it, allowed PCM to file a supplementary affidavit, which it duly did, as well as a second one, to attempt to remedy this deficiency. Manuli, in response filed a supplementary answering affidavit. On 14 March 2023, the parties were again in urgent court and Randera AJ gave an interim order, interdicting Manuli from appointing any

2023 JDR 3429 p3

Manoim J

company as its joint venture or community development partner for the Amplats project pending the finalisation of the matter in the ordinary course. [1]

[3]

This explains how this matter is before me now on the ordinary opposed motion roll. The applicant now seeks a final interdict on these terms:

a.

That Manuli be interdicted from appointing any company as its joint venture partner pursuant to the advert;

b.

That Manuli be interdicted from issuing a further such advert in the future;

c.

That if Manuli has appointed another company pursuant to the advert that such appointment be voided;

d.

That the Court declare that there is an existing joint venture between PCM and Manuli as its partner for the Amplats Matotolo contract.

[4]

The requirements for a final interdict are well-known. They are a clear right on the part of the applicant; an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; the absence of any other satisfactory remedy available to the applicant. [2] All of these requirements must be present. [3]

Clear right

[5]

This case turns on PCM’s allegation that in March 2021, it entered into an oral agreement in terms of which PCM would become Manuli’s sole local development

2023 JDR 3429 p4

Manoim J

partner for the Greater Tubatse region. The agreement was reached between the second applicant, Petros Tonga, the applicant’s owner and sole director, and Johan Weigand, a manager of Manuli. Tonga alleges that the agreement was express or alternatively tacit. At the time it was anticipated that Amplats was going to put out a tender for hydraulic hose management known as the Matotolo tender.

[6]

It was agreed as well that each party would tender separately for the contract but whoever won it would...