Smit v Willers (A440/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 79 (29 May 2009)

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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 79
|

|

Smit v Willers (A440/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 79 (29 May 2009)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA)
DATE:
29/05/2009
CASE
NO: A440/2007
UNREPORTABLE
In the matter
between:
MARIA
CATHARINA ALETTA SMIT
Appellant
And
BENITA
WILLERS
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
LEDWABA,
J
[1] The
appellant, the plaintiff in the court a
quo
,
is appealing
against the decision of the magistrate who granted absolution from
the instance in the defendant’s favour after the
defendant closed
her case. The plaintiff in the summons sought judgment against the
defendant for payment of an amount of R 12
750 plus interest and
payment of R 375 when the amount, in terms of the agreement, became
due and payable.
[2] There
was no appearance for the respondent, when the appeal was heard
nor were heads of
argument filed on behalf of the respondent. Respondent’s attorneys
withdrew and the notice of withdrawal was
only filed and sent to the
respondent by registered post on 4
th
May 2009, three days before the matter was heard.
[3] According
to the pleadings, applicant’s claim arises out of a written
agreement attached to appellant’s particulars of claim
as annexure
‘A’, which agreement was amended by the contents of annexure ‘B’
attached to the particulars of claim.
[4] How
annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ originated has been captured in the
pleadings explained in the appellants heads of argument.
I will not
repeat same.
[5] The
issue raised by the respondent in the plea is that the clause:
“Ek
ondeneem verder om ʼn lewenspolis vir ʼn bedrag van R180,00-00 uit
te neem: die premies daarop te betaal en dit te sedeer
aan voormelde
ERASMUS STEPHANUS WILLERS.”
in
annexure ‘A’ insured the debt owed by the respondent. Appellant
submits it did not.
[6] The
magistrate’s reasons for his/her judgement are the following:
“Eiseres
was ʼn enkelgetuie, omtrent die lenings ooreenkoms. Sy het geen
getuienis omtrent die bedrae soos geeis in haar dagvaardiging
gegee
nie. Sy het verder toegegee dat daar ʼn uitbetaling van ʼn polis was
in haar oorlede seun se bedoel. Sy kon nie ontken dat
die polis
uitgeneem was ter versekering van die lening nie. Die boedel is nog
nie afgehandel nie, en was daar geen bevestigtende
of ontkennende
getuienis dat die polis nie die skuld gedelg het nie, soos
verweerderes gepleit het nie.
Verweerderes
het nie enige getuienis aangebied nie. Die hof kon nie op ʼn oorwig
van waarskynlikhede bevind dat eiseres haar eis
soos geëis in die
dagvaardiging bewys het nie, en absolusie van die instansie is ten
gunste van verweerderes toegestaan.”
[7] On
careful perusal of the pleadings the respondent does not deny nor
dispute that the parties entered into a second agreement
in about
July 2003 contents of which read as follows:
“AANGESIEN
bogemelde partye op die 13de dag van Junie 2000 ʼn Promesse
ooreenkoms aangegaan het in terme waarvan sekere betalings
gemaak
moes Word aan Erasmus Stephanus Willers;
EN
VERDER AANGESIEN Martin Willers en Benita Willers van voorneme is om
hulle huwelik te ontbind;
EN
VERDER AANGESIEN Erasmus Stephanus Willers ʼn gedeelte van sy eis
aan sy voormalige eegenote Marita Willers oorgedra het.
EN
VERDER AANGESIEN dit blyk dat as gevolg van die verandering van die
versikillende partye se omstandighede soos bo uiteengesit
daar nou ʼn
nuwe ooreenkoms gesluit behoort te word.
NOU
DERHALWE kom die partye as volg ooreen:
1.
BENITA
WILLERS is aanspreekliklik vir terugbetaling van die bedrag van R45
000.00 (vyf en veertig duisend rand) aan MARITA WILLERS
en sal sy
aanspreeklik wees vir ʼn maandelikse betaling van R375.00 (drie
honderd vyf en sewentig rand) aan MARITA WILLERS. BENITA
WILLERS
onderneem dan verder om die bedreg van R45 000.00 (vyf en veertig
duisend rand) in Junie 2010 aan MARITA WILLERS te betaal.
2.
Die
partye stem toe tot die jurisdiksie van die Landdroshof, in verband
met enige aksie wat hieruit mag voortspruit.
3.
Indien enige betaling nie gemaak
word op die vervaldag nie, sal die geheel van die uitstaande balans
ingevolge hierdie ooreenkoms
opeisbaar en betaalbaar wees.”
[8] In
my view, annexure ‘B’ amended annexure ‘A’ as the heading
reads: ‘WYSIGING VAN PROMESSE’ and the parties entered
into a
new agreement.
[9] The
new agreement annexure ‘B’ is silent as far as a life policy is
concerned. I fail to understand why did the magistrate
in the
reasons for judgment mention the relevance of the life policy in the
new agreement, annexure ‘B’.
[10] The
appellant in paragraph 14 of the particulars of claim has set out
why the amount of R12 750 is due and respondent admits
that the
monies were not paid.
[11] Annexure
‘A’, clause 3 therein, has an acceleration clause in terms of
when the appellant could counterclaim the outstanding
balance.
However, the appellant asked for judgement as follows:
“(b) Betaling
van R375 soos en wanneer die bedrag opeisbaar en verskuldig is plus
rente a tempore morae.”
[12] Mr.
Mills correctly in my view did not persist with prayer (b) in the
particulars of claim.
[13] The
plaintiff has, in my view, proved on the balance of probabilities
that the respondent owes her the amount in prayer 8 of
the
particulars of claim. The respondent closed his case without leading
any evidence.
[14] Having
regard to the aforesaid, the magistrate erred in granting absolution
from the instance. I therefore make the following
order:
(i) The
order of the court a
quo
is set aside and
is replaced with the following order:
“Defendant
(Respondent) is ordered to pay plaintiff (appellant) the amount of
(twelve thousand seven hundred and fifty rand)
R12 750 plus
interest”.
(ii) Respondent
(Defendant) is ordered to pay the costs of the action proceedings
in the magistrate’s court and the costs of
this appeal.
A.
P. LEDWABA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
I
agree,
P.
EBERSOHN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT