All Good Things 149 CC v Wascon Siviel CC and Another (1116/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 68 (11 May 2006)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2006
>>
[2006] ZAFSHC 68
|

|

All Good Things 149 CC v Wascon Siviel CC and Another (1116/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 68 (11 May 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: 1116/2006
In
the case between:
ALL GOOD THINGS 149
CC
Plaintiff
and
WASCON SIVIEL CC
1
st
Defendant
WOUTER
WASSERMAN
2
nd
Defendant
JUDGMENT:
EBRAHIM, J
_____________________________________________________
HEARD ON:
4 MAY 2006
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
11 MAY 2006
_____________________________________________________
[1] This is an
application for summary judgment in which the plaintiff seeks against
1
st
and 2
nd
defendants jointly and severally the amount of R402 024,32 for goods
sold and delivered to the 1
st
defendant on a open and running account between October 2005 and
January 2006. The claim against the 2
nd
defendant is based on an alleged suretyship undertaking given by the
2
nd
defendant in respect of the debts of the 1
st
defendant to the plaintiff.
[2] The
affidavit of the defendants resisting summary judgment sets out their
defence in paragraph’s 4.3 to 4.6 thereof as follows:
“
4.3 Tydens die
gemelde termyn het dit reeds aan die lig gekom dat sekere van die
fakture sekere aankope getoon het wat nie deur 1ste
Verweerder gemaak
en/of ontvang is nie. Hierdie fakture is nagegaan aan die hand van
1ste Verweerder se goedgekeurde bestellingsdokumente.
Eiser se
fakture is derhalwe op grond van verkeerde inligting opgestel en
bereken.
4.4 Daar
is verskeie kere met Eiser in verbinding getree na aanleiding van die
foutiewe fakture en die besonderhede wat betwis word.
Alhoewel
hierdie aspekte gereeld met die Eiser opgeneem is en verskeie
ondernemings deur die Eiser gegee is om dit reg te stel,
het die
Eiser eenvoudig versuim om die foute reg te stel.
4.5 Na
aanleiding van Eiser se versuim om die fakture reg te stel en die
nodige samewerking te gee, is daar uiteindelik gedurende
Maart 2006
besluit om opdrag aan ‘n finansiële adviseur te gee om ’n
volledige rekonsiliasie van alle transaksies met die Eiser
te doen.
Vir voormelde rekonsiliasie word alle goedgekeurde bestellingsbriewe,
voorraadopnames en afleweringstate in ag geneem.
Alhoewel die
rekonsiliasie nog nie naastenby voltooi is nie, het dit reeds aan die
lig gekom dat daar op ’n verskeidenheid van
die fakture vir goedere
geëis word wat nie deur 1ste Verweerder bestel of ontvang is nie.
4.6 Ek het reeds fakture in die bedrag
van ongeveer R400 000,00 opgespoor ten aansien van aankope vanaf
Eiser welke nie deur ons kantore
gemagtig is volgens bogemelde
praktyk nie, alternatiewelik nie deur ons kantore ontvang is nie.“
[3] It
is trite that the test for the grantin
g
of summary judgment is whether or not the defendants have raised a
bona
fide
defence to the plaintiff’s claim. A
bona
fide
defence is sufficiently disclosed where the defendant swears to a
defence, valid in law, in a manner which is not inherently or
seriously
unconvincing or, put differently, if his or her affidavit
shows that there is a reasonable possibility that the defence he or
she
advances may succeed on trial.
See
BREITENBACH
v FIAT SA (EDMS) BPK
1976 (2) SA 226
(T).
[4] In essence the
defendants have alleged that from a revision of invoices received
from the plaintiff and performed by 1
st
defendant, which revision has not yet been completed, invoices in the
sum of approximately R400 000,00 worth of purchases have come
to
light reflecting goods not ordered and not delivered during the
relevant period of the plaintiff’s claim. If these facts are
in
fact established at trial, the plaintiff will not succeed in its
claim and accordingly, the defence, if true, constitutes one
valid in
law for the purposes of Rule 32 of the Rules of this Court.
[5] Mr. Williams, for the
plaintiff, has argued, not without some substance and foundation,
that the defence has not been raised with
sufficient particularity
such that it can be said that it has been fully disclosed within the
meaning of Rule 32(3)(b) so as to amount
to a
bona
fide
defence. Rule 32(3)(b) requires that the opposing affidavit in
summary judgment proceedings shall disclose
“
...
fully the nature and grounds of the defence and the material facts
relied upon therefor.”
He has argued,
understandably, that the defendant ought to have set out details of
the invoices reflecting the purchases allegedly
not made and goods
allegedly not delivered by the plaintiff. While the affidavit is
terse and lacks particulars, in my view it does
disclose the nature
and grounds of the defence and, although somewhat bare, the essential
material facts relied upon by the defendants,
namely that the
plaintiff’s claim is for amounts in respect of goods not ordered by
the defendants and not delivered to the defendants
by the plaintiff.
See
TESVEN
CC AND ANOTHER v SOUTH AFRICAN BANK OF ATHENS
2000 (1) SALR 268
SCA.
[6] That being so it is
not necessary for me to consider the separate defence peculiar to the
claim against the 2
nd
defendant as surety.
In
the result I make the following order:
The application for
summary judgment is refused.
Leave is granted to the
1
st
and 2
nd
defendants to defend the action.
The costs of the
application for summary judgment is to be costs in the cause.
_____________
S. EBRAHIM, J
On
behalf of plaintiff: Adv. A. Williams
Instructed by:
Symington & De Kok
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of defendants: Adv. M.D.J. Steenkamp
Instructed by:
Claude Reid Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN
/em