South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2020 >> [2020] ZAGPPHC 139

| Noteup | LawCite

Ghost Squad Tactical (Pty) Limited v Benningfield and Others (11296/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 139 (7 March 2020)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

 

(1)           REPORTABLE: NO

(2)           OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

 

Case No: 11296/2020

 

In the matter between:

 

GHOST SQUAD TACTICAL (PTY) LIMITED                                APPLICANT

 

and

 

DOUGLAS KEITH RODNEY BENNINGFIELD                             FIRST RESPONDENT

PIRANA GUARDING (PTY) LIMITED                                            SECOND RESPONDENT

RENPROP MANAGEMENT (PTY) LIMITED                                THIRD RESPONDENT

RENPROP (PTY) LIMITED                                                               FOURTH RESPONDENT


JUDGMENT/ ORDER

 

RAULINGA J,

1.          This matter was heard on 4 March 2020 as an urgent application.

2.          When the proceedings commenced, parties agreed on the urgency of the matter.

3.          The relief sought by the applicant is a restraint of trade in the form of a final interdict and consequent ancillary relief against the first, second and fourth respondents. No relief is sought against the third respondent.

4.         At the conclusion of the submissions by counsel the matter was stood down to 6 March 2020, to allow parties to discuss a possible settlement. On 6 March 2020, the parties reverted informing the Court that a settlement agreement was reached between the applicant and, the second and the fourth respondents. Judgment was reserved in respect of the dispute between the applicant and the fourth respondent.

5.         The settlement agreement was made an order of Court on 11 March 2020.

6.         Having considered the submissions by counsel, for the applicant and the fourth respondent, I have come to the conclusion that the application must be dismissed with costs.

7.         Consequently, I make the following order:

7.1     The application is urgent.

7.2     The application is dismissed with costs.

 

 

 

T. J RAULINGA

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

 

 

Appearance;

Applicant's Counsel:                                   Adv. M. Snyman SC

Applicant' s Attorneys:                               M J Hood & Associates

1st & 2nd Respondent's Counsel:               Adv. R Robinson

Respondent's Attorneys :                           TKI Scott Attorneys

4th Respondent's Counsel :                        Adv D Watson

4th Respondent's Attorney:                         Christelis Artemides Attorneys

Date of hearing :                                         04 March 2020

Date of Judgment:                                       07 March 2020