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
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1150
|
|
Engen Petroleum Ltd v Nirghin (21822/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1150 (4 October 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: 21822/2022
DATE
: 04-10-2023
In
the matter between
ENGEN
PETROLEUM LTD
Plaintiff
And
DHEWENTHRA
NIRGHIN
Defendant
J U D G M E N T
YACOOB, J
:
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The applicant seeks payment from the
respondent on the basis of a suretyship agreement. There is no
dispute of fact regarding the
indebtedness. The indebtedness
has been acknowledged by the main debtor who has been liquidated.
The only issue raised
by the respondent in the answering affidavit is
the contention that the suretyship agreement has prescribed, and the
suretyship
agreement clearly has not prescribed nor can it.
There is therefore, no reason not to
grant the money judgment. The applicant also seeks costs on an
attorney and client scale,
because the last time the matter was
enrolled it was enrolled on the unopposed roll in September 2022 and
on the eve of the hearing
the respondent filed an answering
affidavit, which, as I have noted, does not disclose any substantive
defence. The contention
of the applicant is that the filing of
the affidavit was simply a delay tactic.
This morning before the hearing at
approximately nine o’clock I received heads of argument from
the respondent’s counsel
which intimated that an application
for postponement would be made. The basis of the application
was apparently that new
documents had come to light which may show
that there was a claim for reckless credit. However, no affidavit was
filed, no proper
application was made, and there is no evidence
before this Court. According to submissions made from the Bar,
the information
on which this postponement is purportedly based
must have always been known to the respondent as it included evidence
of meetings
which the respondent had attended.
There is therefore, absolutely no
reason why the information was not previously included in the
affidavit or why the application
for postponement was not properly
made and in good time. Even if the documents came to the legal
representative’s attention
at the beginning of this week,
taking into account that the matter was set down for hearing from
Monday, they could have filed
an affidavit setting out briefly the
grounds. They failed to do so. I am unable to find that there
is any case made out for
postponement, and I tend to agree with the
applicant’s contention that this is simply yet another delay
tactic.
For these reasons, I will grant costs
on the attorney and client scale.
I grant an order in terms of the
draft.
YACOOB, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE
: 12/10/23