About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 531
|
|
Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Another (20293/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 531 (1 July 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE
NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO. 20293
I
2015
DATE:
1/7/2015
In
the matter between:
COMPENSATION
SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
PLAINTIFF
And
THE
COMPESANTION
COMMISSIONER
FIRST DEFENDANT
DIRECTOR-GENERAL
OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
LABOUR,
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
SECOND
DEFENDANT
Judgment
SIBUYI
A J
[1].
This is an opposed application for summary judgment in respect of
monies allegedly due to the plaintiff in terms of the Compensation
for Occupational Diseases and injuries Act, Act 130 of 1993 ("COIDA")
read with the court order granted by Makhafola
AJ on 31 July 2009 in
a previous matter between the same parties under case number 35047
I
09 ("the court order").
[2].
The plaintiff conducts the business,
inter alia,
of factoring
the accounts of medical service providers that are payable by the
defendants from the Compensation Fund established
in terms of section
15 of COIDA. The plaintiff claims that the first defendant is
required by COIDA to process and validate such
medical accounts and
to effect payment of the validated accounts to the plaintiff. In
terms of the court order the defendants are
obliged to process and
validate medical accounts and effect payment of such medical accounts
within 75 days of the acceptance of
a claim. The first defendant has
paid R 7 566 347. 42 of the claimed amount of R 17 501 764,51 since
date of summons and the plaintiff
is now seeking judgment for the sum
of R 9 935 417. 08, being the balance due and payable by the
defendants.
[3].
In due course the defendants entered appearance to defend, the
plaintiff applied for summary judgment and thereafter the defendants
filed an opposing affidavit wherein they denied liability. The
defendants raised and argued several defences to the plaintiffs
claim. By reason of the view I am going to take on the matter it is
not necessary for me to make any finding in respect of each
defence
raised by the defendants.
[4].
Assuming in
favour
of
the
plaintiff
and
without
deciding
the
disputed
issue;
that the
court
order
relied
upon
by the
plaintiff
applies
to
this
matter,
of
importance
is that
"the
defendants
are
obliged
to
process
submitted
medical
accounts
within
reasonable
time
from
the
date
of
submission
of
such
accounts
[1]
.
It
is
recorded
in the
court
order
that
in
respect
of medical accounts submitted
after
the
defendants have
accepted
liability
thereon, a
reasonable
time
to
process,
validate and effect payment on
such
validated
medical
accounts
is
within 75
days from the date of acceptance
of the
claim
[2]
.
[5].
It
is
alleged and
contended on behalf of
the
plaintiff
that the
schedule of accounts
attached
as "POC3"
to the particulars of claim show that the medical accounts
claimed
have
been
processed
and
validated,
but
not
paid
by
the
defendants within the 75-day period
[3]
.
The
defendants, on
the other
hand contend
among
other
grounds,
that
the
claims
are
not
due
and
payable
as
they either
have not
been investigated,
validated,
and
or
approved
for
payment
[4]
.
I find
nothing
in
annexure
"POC3"
indicating
that
plaintiff
s
claims
were
validated
and or
approved
for
payment
by the
defendants.
Due to
the
voluminous
nature of
the claims,
the
plaintiff
should
have
identified
each
validated
and
approved
claim.
It did
not.
Though
it
is
possible
that
some
of the
claims
may
have been
validated
and approved for
payment,
the
plaintiff
failed
to
identify
such validated
and
approved
claims
in its
papers.
Had it done
so,
it could
have
been
entitled to seek summary
judgment
on such
validated
and
approved
claims.
[6].
The other problem is that the court order does not provide any remedy
in the event of the defendants failing to process, validate
and
effect payment on validated medical accounts within 75 days from the
date of acceptance of the claim. I am of the view
that the
correct remedy for the plaintiff under those circumstances is to
compel compliance with the court order and not to institute
legal
action for payment of unliquidated amounts. This is so because
logically, in terms of the court order, an accepted claim
will not
necessarily be due and payable after the expiry of 75 days. It only
becomes due and payable after it has been processed
and validated.
[7].
At the summary judgment stage of proceedings the rule does not
require a convincing defence by the defendant but a
bona
fide
defence, which is good in law. The defendants'
above-mentioned defence, if ultimately proved at the trial of the
matter, would amount
to valid defence in law to the plaintiff's
claims. This being the threshold to overcome an application for
summary judgment, summary
judgment must be refused.
[8].
Summary judgment is an extraordinary
and
stringent
remedy,
which ought
to
be
granted
only
if
there is
no
doubt
that
the
plaintiff,
has
an
unanswerable
case.
However,
if
doubt
exists then
summary
judgment
should
be
refused
[5]
. In the
light
of
the
above, I
find
that
the
plaintiff
in
this
matter
has
no
unanswerable
case.
Therefore,
I am
satisfied
that the
defendants
have a
bona
fide
to the
plaintiff's
claims and
summary
judgment must
be
refused.
I
accordingly order as follows:
1
Summary judgment is refused.
2
Leave is granted to the defendants to defend the action.
3
The costs of this application are to be costs in the cause.
SIBUYI
AJ
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
For
the plaintiff :
Advocate C. J. Welgemoed
Instructed
by :Stegmanns
Incorporated
For
the defendants :
Advocates S. S. Maakane SC, with M. Vimbi
Instructed
by :The
State
Attorney, Pretoria
Date
of hearing :5
June 2015
[1]
See paragraph 1 of the court order.
[2]
See paragraph 2 of the court order.
[3]
See paragraph 9 of the
particulars
of claim.
[4]
See paragraphs
14, 15 and
16 of the
opposing
affidavit.
[5]
See Tesven CC and Another
v South
African
Bank of
Athens
2000
(1) SA 268
(A) at 277H - 278A.