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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 678
|
|
SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Rakgatla (2020/7769) [2021] ZAGPJHC 678 (11 August 2021)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
2020/7769
Reportable: No
Of interest to other
judges: No
Revised: Yes
11 August 2021
In
the matter between:
SA
TAXI FINANCE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED
Applicant
(Registration
Number: 2003/029687/07)
and
RAKGATLA,
ALBERT
SEGWAPA
Respondent
(Identity
Number: [....])
JUDGMENT
– WRIGHT J
WRIGHT
J
1.
The applicant company leased a vehicle to
the respondent gentleman. The applicant launched an action against
the respondent, claiming
return of the vehicle following cancellation
of the agreement by the applicant for breach by the respondent. A
plea and counterclaims
were delivered. Numerous defences were raised.
The applicant seeks now summary judgment. An affidavit in support of
the application,
in the usual form is attached to the application.
The respondent has delivered an affidavit opposing summary judgment
setting out
numerous defences.
2.
The particulars of claim are dated 5 March
2020. The affidavit in support of the application for summary
judgment is dated 10 July
2020. In paragraph 6, the deponent says
that she is well acquainted with the records of the plaintiff. In
paragraph 9 she says
that she has read the summons, particulars of
claim and the application for summary judgment. No mention is made of
any amendment.
She verifies a valid cause of action.
3.
On 8 July 2020, two days before the signing
of the affidavit in support of the application for summary judgment
the applicant’s
attorney had signed a notice of intention to
amend. Apparently, according the applicant, the chassis number of the
vehicle was
wrongly set out in the particulars of claim. This notice
of intended amendment was served on the respondent’s attorney
on
13 July 2020. The respondent’s attorney objected to the
intended amendment without giving grounds of objection. The
applicant’s
attorney filed amended pages.
4.
At the end of the day the amendment or
purported amendment may turn out to be a matter of little importance.
5.
The difficulty for the applicant at this
stage is that on the applicant’s own version the vehicle
described in the particulars
of claim is not the vehicle sought by
the applicant to be recovered. The purported verification of the
cause of action is, on the
applicant’s own conduct, wrong.
There is accordingly no compliance with Rule 32(2)(b).
6.
There is no need for me to deal with the
other defences.
7.
There is a dispute between the parties as
to who should pay the wasted costs of a previous occasion, on 13
August 2020 when the
application had to be postponed for lack of
readiness by the respondent, according to the applicant. The
respondent denies wrongdoing.
The respondent would normally be
ordered to bear these costs, if the applicant is correct but the
application was never on a sound
footing. I can’t resolve this
dispute now.
ORDER
1.
The application for summary judgment is
dismissed with costs.
2.
The respondent is granted leave to defend.
3.
The question of the costs for 13 August
2020 is reserved.
HEARD
: 11 August 2021
DELIVERED
:
11
August 2021
APPLICANT
:
Adv.
Rosalind Stevenson
083 563 9042
ros@counsel.co.za
Marie-Lou Bester Inc
109 Westweld Way
Saxowold
Johannesburg, 011 486
0775
efiling@mlbester.com
RESPONDENT
: Mr
Thesigan Pillay
084 764 9374/012
387 6047
pretorialegal@gmail.com
Pillay Thesigan Inc
742 WF Nkomo Street
Propclamation Hill
C/O Matsemela
Attorneys
65 Central Street
Houghton Estate
Johannesburg,