About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPJHC 36
|
|
Mantra Consulting (Pty) Limited v Valor IT CC and Others (09/35874) [2010] ZAGPJHC 36; [2010] 4 All SA 449 (GSJ) (7 April 2010)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NUMBER: 09/35874
Reportable
In the matter between:
MANTRA
CONSULTING (PTY) LIMITED
Applicant
and
VALOR IT CC
Respondent
THE
COMPANIES AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGISTRATION OFFICE
First Interested
Party
ROBERT DAVIES N.O.
THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY
Second Interested
Party
MOKGOATLHENG J
(1) The applicant has
instituted this application against the respondent seeking an order
in the following terms;
(a) Declaring that the
agreements entered into between the applicant and the respondent
namely, The Master Agreement (MA) and the
Services Arrangement Letter
(SAL) valid;
(b) Ordering the
respondent to make payment to the applicant the sum of R2, 500.000.00
(plus VAT) and interest thereon, at the
rate of 15.5% per annum a
tempora morae
being in respect of the second payment required
in terms of
Clause 6.1.2 of (SAL)
;
(c) Ordering the
respondent to make payment to the applicant the sum of R180.000.00
(plus VAT) per month in respect of the
months April, May, June, July
and August 2009 in total being the amount of R1, 026.000.00 (plus
VAT), plus interest thereon, at
the rate of 15.5% per annum a
tempora
morae
in respect of the consulting services as set out in
Clause
6.1.2 of (SAL)
;
(e)
Ordering
the respondent to make payment to the applicant the amount of
R180.000.00 (plus VAT) per month plus interest thereon at
the rate if
15.5% per annum a
tempora
morae
payable
on the 7th day of each month for the duration of the Master
Agreement with the first payment being in respect of the
month of
September 2009, for consulting services as set out in
Clause
6.1.2 of (SAL)
;
(d)
Ordering
the respondent to make payment to the applicant 2% of the gross
annuity revenue for the duration of the services made to
CIPRO in
terms of
Clause
6.1.4 of (SAL)
.
THE FACTUAL MATRIX
(2) It is common cause
that parties concluded two written contracts, a Master Agreement (MA)
on the 12 September 2008, and a Services
Arrangement Letter (SAL) on
the 4 September 2008 respectively.
(3) In terms of
Clauses
3.1.1.1 of (SAL) and 6.1 of (MA),
the applicant facilitated that
the respondent be awarded by CIPRO, the Enterprise Content Management
Tender (ECM). In terms of
Clause 3.1.2.of (SAL),
the
respondent undertook to appoint the applicant to provide consulting
services as an account executive.
(4) In terms of
Clauses
6.1 of (MA), 3.1.1.1 and 6.1.2 of (SAL)
the respondent was
obliged to pay the applicant for services rendered the amount of R2,
500.000.00 on signature of the agreement,
between it and CIPRO, and
three months thereafter, a further amount of R2, 500.000.00.
(5) In terms of
Clauses
6.1.2 of (SAL) and 6.1 of (MA)
the respondent was obliged to pay
the applicant in respect of consulting services the amount of
R180.000.00 per month over the duration
of the ECM project.
THE DEMAND
(6) Due to the
respondent’s breach of contract, the applicant, addressed a
letter of demand to it enclosing Invoice No. C1003
dated the 6 April
2009, and requesting payment of the globular amount of R10.494.682.78
made up as follows:
(a) C001 1.00 Consulting
fee as per
SAL
Clause 3.1.1.1;
R
2 192.982.46
(b)
C002
1.00 Use of Mantra consulting’s
intellectual capital in
response to
CIPRO Bid 943/2008 @ 5%
of
award value as per
MA
Clause 12;
R 6 697.879.63
(c)
C003
0.75 Consulting fee for
February 2009 per
SAL
Clause
3.1.2.1;
and R
180.000.00
(d)
C003
1.00 Consulting fee for March
2009 per
SAL Clause
3.1.2.1.
R 180.000.00
Balance Due
R10.494.682.78
(7) In the body of the
Invoice No C1003 there is an item captioned,
NOTE
1.
Outstanding due item and payable in terms of
M.A Clause wrt 6.2.2
2% of gross services from Valor IT to CIPRO in terms of SAL
Clause
6.1.4
could not be stated here as Mantra not privy to Valor IT
invoice(s) to CIPRO………
(8) In terms of
Clauses
6.1 of (MA) and 6.1.4
of (SAL)
the respondent was to pay
the applicant 2% of its gross annuity revenue for the duration of the
services made to respondent arising
from the ECM project.
THE OFFER OF
COMPROMISE
(9) On the 17 April 2009
the respondent’s attorneys addressed a letter to the
applicant accompanied by a cheque, which
reads:
“
Our
instructions are to place the following facts on record in relation
to your claim invoice C003 dated 6 April 2009;
1. Our
client admits that it is liable for the claim in terms of Clause
3.1.1.1 of the SAL;
2. Our
client is not privy to the claim purported to be under Clause 1.2 and
records that none exist;
3. No
work has been performed and none has been required in terms of Clause
3.1.2.1 and therefore no liability accrues;
4. Our
client is making an offer of compromise to your claim in full and
final settlement of his (sic) obligations
and liability on Invoice
C1003.
This
offer is made by the enclosed cheque in the sum of R2,5 million which
has special clearance and can be liquidated today. Acceptance
of this
cheque shall be appreciated as acceptance of our offer. We reiterate
that our client denied any further liability to your
above-mentioned
claim……..”
(10) A cheque
dated the 17 April 2009, payable to the applicant bearing the words
“
in full and final settlement INV C1003,
written at the
foot of the cheque across its face, was attached to the letter.
(11) The applicant
deposited the cheque on the same day, the 17 April 2009. On the 20
April 2009, applicant’s attorneys
e-mailed a letter to the
respondent wherein the following is recorded;
”
Our
client stands by the content of its letter dated 9 April 2009. Our
client is accepting the cheque purely on account and in settlement
of
item C001 of its invoice dated 6 April 2009. We stress that our
client is
not
accepting
the cheque in settlement of its entire claim, as proposed by you and
our client is not regarding this matter as fully
and finally settled
THE ISSUE
(12) The essential
issue is whether objectively construed, the evidence shows that the
respondent’s tender, the acceptance
and deposit of the cheque
marked “
in full and final settlement of Invoice C1003,
”
and the respondent’s attorneys letter dated the 17 April 2009,
constituted an offer of compromise of the respondent’s
entire
liability to the applicant, or a tender to pay an admitted debt.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
(13) A compromise
is a settlement of a disputed liability by agreement, it is a
rearrangement of the parties rights and obligations
arising from such
disputed liability. Concerning the expression “
in full
settlement
” De Villiers JA enunciated himself thus in
Harris v Pieters
1920 AD 644
, at
654-5:
“
Now
the phrase ‘in full settlement’ is ambiguous and may mean
one of two things. A debtor, in offering a sum in full
settlement,
may intent to tender the amount unconditionally, only adding the
words ‘in full settlement’ by way of emphasizing
his
contention that the amount tendered covers the whole of his
liability. In that case the offer is made
animo
solvendi
.
Or he may intend to offer the amount on condition that the creditor,
by accepting it, should forego his claim for the balance.
In the
latter case the offer is made for the purpose of entering into a new
contract with the creditor,
animo
contrahendi
……
..”
(14) The words
annoted on the cheque. “
in full and final settlement of INV
C1003”
have to be construed in the context of the
communications and the surrounding circumstances of the dispute
between the parties,
to ascertain whether the respondent intended to
effect a compromise of its entire liability or to make payment of an
admitted debt.
(Burt NO v National Bank of South Africa Ltd
1921 AD 59
at 62; Paterson Exhibitions CC v Knights Advertising and
Marketing CC
1991 (3) SA 523
(A) at 529D; and Absa Bank Ltd v Van
Vyver NO
2002 (4) SA 397
9SCA).
(15) “
The
law, as a general rule, concerns itself with the external
manifestations, and not the workings, of the minds of parties to a
contract.”
Sonap Petroleum (SA) (Pty) Ltd v
Pappadogianis
[1992] ZASCA 56
;
1992 (3) SA 234
at 238I.
The elements of
effective acceptance are a question of law, proof of these elements
is juridically premised on the prevailing factual
matrix.
See
Paterson Exhibitions CC v Knights Advertising and Marketing CC
1991
(3) SA 523
(A) at 529C-D;
(16) In
Be
Bop a Lula Manufacturing & Printing CC v Kingtex Marketing (Pty)
Ltd
2008 (3) SA 327
(SCA) at para 10
, Malan AJA (as he then
was) stated:
“
The
essential issue is whether an agreement of compromise was concluded:
one is concerned simply with the principles of offer and
acceptance.
The first question is whether the cheque accompanied by the Credit
Request and Final Reconciliation constituted an
offer of compromise.
In other words, “the proposal, objectively construed, must be
intended to create binding legal relations
and must have so appeared
to the offeree”……
(17) An offer of
compromise is strictly interpreted, such offer must be unambiguous,
or shall be construed
contra proferentem.
The onus reposes on
the respondent to show that the applicant ought reasonably have
interpreted the letter and cheque as an
offer of compromise of its
entire liability to the applicant’s contractual entire claim.
(See RH Christie The Law of Contracts in South Africa 5 ed at
456-9 and Karson v Minister of Public Works
1996 (1) SA 887
(E) at
896C-D.)
(18) To resolve
this conundrum, it is apposite to fully restate the seminal remarks
of Innes C J in
Harris v Pieters
1920 AD 644
at 649.
The
learned Judge held that the inscription:
“
in
full settlement
” “
ordinarily
used clearly amounts to a condition
”
,
but that: “
Instances
may possibly occur in which the context or other evidence may show
that the words in question or similar words were not
intended to
condition the offer — that they were merely intended to
emphasise the tender’s view as to the extent of
his liability.
If so, the expression would, for all practical purposes, be taken pro
non scripto…….
The plaintiff may
reject it and continue his action……it may accept it and
thus obtain the lesser amount forthwith
instead of enforcing his full
claim………But if he does accept, he is bound by
the terms of the offer. His claim
to the balance cannot be
enforced……where all liability is denied so that the
offer is in essence one of compromise,
the position is, if possible,
clearer still………whether a tender or a payment is
intended is a matter to be
settled upon the facts of each case…….But
if payment is intended, then further considerations arise. For
payment
must be made in the exact terms and to the extent of the
relative obligation. The debtor cannot vary the manner or amount of
his
payment, nor can he engraft upon it any condition not contained
in the contract or implied by law when money is delivered to the
creditor in payment of a liability which the debtor admits,
accompanied by the statement that it is paid in full settlement, he
is bound to accept it as such. He may, of course waive his rights and
do so. But he is entitled to reject the condition. On the
assumption
that the debtor intends to pay the liability, which he admits, and
delivers the money with that intention, the condition
which he seeks
to attach is inoperative save with the creditor’s assent and if
the creditor withhold’s his assent and
repudiates the
condition, he may in my opinion retain the money and sue for the
balance. For the position is this: The obligation
is discharged to
the extent of the payment; the debtor who pays cannot compel the
creditor to donate his claim for the balance.
And if the creditor
refuses to do this, his right to that claim remains unaffected by the
receipt of the money…………
The test in all these
cases therefore is this, was there a tender accompanied by money or
cheque, or was there a payment with an
attempt to annex a condition.
In the former case, if the tender is refused the money should be
returned: in the latter, if the
condition is rejected the money may
be retained and the balance claimed.”
See
also R.H. Christie The
Law
of Contract in South Africa 4th Edition 529ff
(19) Prof D T
Zeffertt in his article “
Payments in Full Settlement”
(1972) 89 SA Law Journal 35 at 40
states: “
To
be an effective offer of compromise,……the tender must
contain only one condition: that acceptance ends the dispute,……the
acceptance must be clear and unambiguous…….”
See
ABSA Bank Ltd v Van der Vyver NO
2002 (4) SA 397
(SCA) para 17;
Bebop
A Lula Manufacturing and Printing CC v Kingtex Marketing
2008 (3) SA
327
(SCA) para 10 and 13.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
(20) Mr Sher on
applicant’s behalf argued that the respondent’s offer of
compromise can only relate to some of
the items set out in Invoice No
C1003 depending on whether the latter admitted liability in respect
thereof or not, consequently,
he submitted the offer of compromise
specifically related only to item C001 in respect of consulting fees
pursuant to
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
, namely the amount of R2
192.982.46, this sum being in fact, the first payment instalment of
the respondent’s contractual
liability of R2.500.000.00, which
was due and payable on the 27 March 2009, on signing of the agreement
between CIPRO and the respondent.
(21) Counsel
argued that since the respondent’s offer of compromise, does
not mention the second payment of the amount
of R2.5 million due and
payable pursuant to
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL,
on the 27 June
2009, the respondent cannot claim that it sought to compromise that
contractual liability.
(22) In the
alternative, Mr Sher made a concession that at best for the
respondent only two items in Invoice No C1003
were compromised,
namely item C001 in respect of consulting fees pursuant to
Clause
3.1.1.1 of SAL
, and item C002 in respect of the use of
applicant’s intellectual property pursuant to
Clause 12 of
the Master Agreement.
(23) Mr Sher
contended that the respondent did not make an offer of compromise in
respect of the item under the heading “
NOTE,
”
relating to 2% of the respondent’s annuity revenue pursuant to
Clause 6.2.2 of MA
, because in essence the respondent denies
liability thereof, and item C003 in respect of the consulting fees
pursuant to
Clause 3.1.2 of SAL.
(24) Mr Bokaba on
the respondent’s behalf, relying on the authority in the case
of
ABSA Bank Limited v Van Vyver NO supra,
submitted
that the applicant by depositing the cheque, appropriating and
retaining the funds to itself, has in essence accepted
the offer of
compromise set out in the respondent’s attorneys letter dated
the 17 April 2009, consequently, applicant has
no further claim
against the respondent, arising from the contracts concluded between
the parties.
(25) Counsel
further submitted that there was an effective acceptance
of the offer of
compromise made by the respondent, the purported rejection of the
offer of compromise three days after depositing
the cheque and
retaining the proceeds thereof is irrelevant and of no legal import.
(26) Counsel
argued that the applicant attorney’s statement that the
applicant is not accepting the cheque “
in full and final
settlement”
of its entire claim or that it did not regard
the matter as fully and finally settled, made it clear, that the
parties were
ad idem
that, the offer of compromise was made in
relation to the applicant’s entire claim. Consequently, beyond
17 April 2009, any
liability the respondent had towards the applicant
was extinguished.
A CONSIDERATION OF
THE EVIDENCE
(27) The
applicant’s concession that an offer compromise was made in
respect of items C001, C002 and C003 does not
bind or preclude the
court from objectively inquiring whether as a matter of law, an offer
of compromise did eventuate in regard
to the applicant’s entire
claim or part thereof.
(28) Under item
C001 in Invoice No C1003, the applicant claims R2 192.982.46 in terms
of
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
, this claim is R300.017.34 less than
the R2.5 million contractually due and payable by the respondent upon
contract signing on
the 27 March 2009. The respondent attorney’s
letter dated 17 April 2009 admits liability in the amount of R2
192.982.46 in
respect of item C001 pursuant to
Clause 3.1.1.1 of
SAL
.
(29) Through its
attorneys statement that “
it is liable for the claim in
terms of Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL.”
the respondent
unequivocally admits liability for the applicant’s contractual
claim in the amount of R2.5 million pursuant
to
Clause 3.1.1.1 of
SAL,
and makes a tender in respect thereto, which unambiguously
relates to the first payment of R2.5 million which was contractually
due and payable on 27 March 2009. This contractual liability for some
inexplicable reason is categorized as the amount of R2 192.982.46
in
C001 which the applicant declares the respondent is liable for in
terms of
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
.
(30) In my view
because respondent admits liability for the claim in item C001 in
terms of
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL,
its offer of compromise can
only relate to the balance of the items set out in Invoice No C1003
dated 6 April 2009. The respondent
has therefore pertinently
and specifically tendered to pay its admitted debt of R2 192.982.46
under item C001, and correspondingly
also tendered the balance of
R307.017.34 as an offer of compromise in respect of items C002, C003
and the unquantufied claim accruing
from
Clause 6.2.2 of the
Master Agreement,
under the heading “
NOTE
” in
Invoice No C1003.
(31) Payment “
in
full and final settlement of INVC1003
” by the respondent in
the amount of R2.5 million was therefore intended not only as payment
of the admitted debt of R2 192.982.46
which accrues pursuant to
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
, the balance of R307.017.34 was also
effectually offered as an offer of compromise for all items
encapsulated in Invoice No C1003
dated 6 April 2009.
(32) In my view
the respondent’s failure to refer to the liability accruing in
respect of
Clause 6.2.4 of MA
or the failure to address or
mention any other liability encapsulated in Invoice No C1003, does
not, detract from the fact that
it was the respondent’s
intention to tender to pay an admitted debt and to make an offer of
compromise to the applicant’s
claim as encapsulated in invoice
No. C1003.
(33) Consequently,
the acceptance of the balance of R307.017.34, the depositing thereof,
and the appropriation thereof by
the applicant constitutes effective
acceptance of an offer of compromise in respect of the balance of the
items set out in
Invoice No C1003 dated 6 April 2009,
excluding item C001.
(34) Even if I am
wrong in this conclusion, if for instance it was the respondent’s
intention to make an offer of compromise
only and not also a tender
to pay an admitted debt, respondent’s letter and cheque can
only encapsulate an offer of compromise
in respect only of items set
out in Invoice No C1003 dated the 6 April 2009, and cannot and do not
extend such offer of compromise
beyond the scope of INV C1003,
because Invoice No C1003 does not embrace the applicant’s
entire contractual claim.
(35)
The scope of the offer of compromise, in respect of item C001
however, does not in its ambit encompass the applicant’s
contractual entitlement to payment of the second payment in respect
of consulting fees pursuant to
Clause
3.1.1.1 of SAL
which
contractually accrues as the second payment due and payable on the 27
June 2009.
(36) The
applicant’s attorney’s letter dated 20 April 2009 makes
it clear that the acceptance of the payment
of the cheque is on
account and in settlement of item C001 only, that is it relates to
the first payment as per
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
. Such
acceptance therefore does not encapsulate the second payment accruing
in terms of
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
due and payable on 27 June
2009.
(37) The cheque
was accepted on the terms and conditions set out in the applicant’s
letter dated 20 April 2009, which
makes it clear that it regards the
tender in the respondent’s attorneys letter dated the 17 April
2009 as payment of an admitted
liability in respect of item C001, and
not as payment of respondent’s entire liability to the
applicant’s contractual
claim in its entirety.
(38) The
respondent’s tender in respect of item C001 “
in full
and final settlement”
is therefore meant in the sense
explained in
Odendaal v Du Plessis 1918 AD.
The
cheque was therefore accepted as payment of an admitted liability
which is in the exact terms and to the exact extent
of the
respondent’s liability as set out in item C001, by the
applicant, consequently, concerning item C001, the applicant
is
entitled to ignore the words “
in full and final settlement,
”
and regard them as
pro non scripto,
keep the payment in
respect of item C001, and sue for the balance of the claim accruing
in terms of MA and SAL.
(39) Regarding
claim 3.1.1.1 of SAL
the words “
in full and final
settlement INVC1003”
in respect of claim C001 do not
necessarily by implication import the condition that acceptance of R2
192.982.46 can be construed
as payment for the balance of the entire
claim in
Clause 3.1.1.1 of SAL
, consequently the balance of R2
500.000.00 due and payable on 27 June 2009 can be claimed despite the
retention of payment of R2
192.982.46 in respect of claim C001.
(40) The
respondent’s offer of comprise in the amount of R307.017.54
therefore, extinguishes the balance of the items
as set out in
invoice C1003, and not respondent’s entire liability and
obligations as defined and agreed to by the parties
in the two
respective contracts M.A and SAL.
(41) Consequently,
as Invoice No C1003 stands, item C001 in the amount of R2 192.982.46,
item C002 in the amount of R6 697.879.63,
and item C003 in the
amounts of R180.000 in respect of February 2009 and R180.000.00 in
respect of March 2009 respectively, have
been extinguished.
(42) The applicant
also seeks an order declaring that the agreements MA and SAL are
valid, binding and of full force and
effect. The respondent does not
disputes this prayer, it actually acknowledges the validity of the
two contracts, beyond Invoice
No C1003.
(43) In its letter
of demand and breach dated the 9 April 2009, the applicant placed the
respondent on terms in respect of
breach for:
(a)
Outstanding payments due and payable;
(b)
Unilateral appointment of Account Executive; and
(c)
Non-payment of annuity revenue.
All these exigencies were
itemized and priced in the claim encapsulated in Invoice No C1003
dated 9 April 2009.
(44) On the 1 July
2009 the applicant again dispatched a letter to the respondent
attaching Invoice No C1006 dated the 25
June 2009 wherein it demanded
payment of:
(a) Consulting fee for
April 2009 per
Clause 3.1.2.1 SAL
in the amount of
R180.000.00, under item C002; and
(b) Consulting fee for
May 2009 per
Clause 3.1.2.1 SAL
in the amount of R180.000.00,
under item C003.
(45) The
respondent responded to Invoice No C1006 by stating that it has made
an offer of compromise to the applicant, which
the latter accepted in
full and final settlement of all its liability. Consequently there
was no legal basis for the applicant
to continue submitting invoices.
(46) As already
found, the applicant’s contractual claim beyond Invoice No
C1003 has not been extinguished in its entirety.
The respondent is
therefore contractually liable for the balance of its contractual
claim to the applicant, of course the assumption
being applicant is
able to prove such liability.
(47) The
respondent’s attorneys in their letter dated the 8 July 2009,
in response to applicant’s letter and
Invoice No C1006 allege
that:
“
3.
After payment of R2.5 Million was offered to your client in
full final settlement and his acceptance thereof, he continued
to
publish serious defamatory statements resulting in disrepute of our
client’s and threatening the continuation of our clients’
contract with CIPRO:
4. The
payment made to your client for facilitation has not borne any result
and on the contrary, he actively attempted
to destroy the
relationship between our client and CIPRO.
5.
As a result your client has breached the contract……..”
7. Your
client’s conduct is clear mal-performance and shows no
intention to facilitate the relationship between
our client and
CIPRO:
8. Your
client has caused loss to our client in payments made to him and now
having to pay other service providers
in order to remedy the profile
of our client and improve its standing with CIPRO.
As a result of your
client’s conduct, we are in this regard
instructed as follows:
* To accept
the above mal-performance and repudiation and claim damages for
losses incurred in the sum of R4 million being,
for payment of R2.5
made without your client carrying out his obligation to facilitate
the relationship between CIPRO and our client,
and a further R1.5
million in damages incurred and still to be incurred by our client in
remedying the reputation of Valor IT……and
other
important stakeholders in the project”
(48) In my view
concerning prayers 7 and 8 in respect of the payment of the amount of
R1.026.000.00 and R180.000.00 per month
for the duration of the
Master Agreement for consulting services set out in
Clause 6.1.2
of SAL,
the respondent invokes various defences amongst which, it
is denied that the applicant rendered any consulting services. These
defences raise disputes of fact which cannot be resolved on the
papers, consequently these aspects are referred to trial.
THE ORDER
(49)
In the premises the following order is made:
(a) The respondent is
ordered to make payment to the applicant the sum of R2.500.000.00
(inclusive of VAT) being the second payment
in terms of
Clause
6.1.2 of SAL,
and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum a
tempora morae; and
(b) The aspects relating
to Prayers 7, 8 and 9 are referred to trial for adjudication;
(c) The
applicant’s founding affidavit shall stand as the particulars
of claim, respondent’s answering affidavit
as the plea, and the
applicant’s replying affidavit as the applicant’s
replication;
(d)
The respondent is ordered to pay 50% of the applicant’s taxed
legal costs.
Signed at Johannesburg on
the 7th April 2010.
MOKGOATLHENG J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
DATE
OF HEARING:
10TH DECEMBER
2009
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
7TH APRIL
2010
FOR
THE APPLICANT:
MR
SHER
INSTRUCTED
BY:
F
E LACHPORIA ATTORNEYS
TELEPHONE
NUMBER:
(011)
830-2186/7
FOR
THE RESPONDENT:
MR
BOKABA WITH MR MPOFU
INSTRUCTED
BY:
NOKO
INCORPORATED
TELEPHONE
NUMBER
(011)
321-0877 / 324-2060