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
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAGPJHC 522
|
|
South African Securitisation Program (RF) Ltd v Complete Avionic Systems (Pty) Limited and Another (2022/045085) [2024] ZAGPJHC 522 (28 May 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO:
2022/045085
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED: YES/NO
DATE:
28/5/24
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
SOUTH
AFRICAN SECURITISATION PROGRAM (RF) LTD
Plaintiff
and
COMPLETE
AVIONIC SYSTEMS (PTY) LIMITED
First Defendant
(IN
LIQUIDATION)
VAN
NIEKERK, JOHANNES GERT RUDOLF
Second Defendant
JUDGMENT
DEN
HARTOG, AJ
1.
This is an application for summary judgment
for payment from the
Second Defendant, based on a suretyship, of outstanding
balances on three different rental agreements
concluded between the
First Defendant and various cedents of the three rental agreements,
which rental agreements were ultimately
ceded to the Plaintiff, in
terms of which certain equipment was hired to the First Defendant.
2.
Mr Botha appeared for the Plaintiff and Mr
Kloek for the Second
Defendant.
3.
No relief was sought against the First Defendant.
4.
It soon during argument became apparent that
Claims A2, B2 and C2
(all of which relate to the return of the rental equipment) were
incompetent vis-à-vis the Second Defendant
and these claims
were correctly so abandoned by Mr Botha for the Plaintiff.
5.
It also became apparent from the argument
of Mr Kloek dat the only
issue at play was the payment in terms of Claim B.
6.
The defence raised in this regard was that
certain payments had been
made on this rental agreement, and as proof of this, the tax invoice
was annexed to the opposing affidavit
marked “A” at
03-41
.
7.
The tax invoice reflects payments in respect
of a Toshiba E-STUDIO
2000AC with serial number CNGH10713 (the subject of the rental
agreement relied upon in Claim B).
8.
It was put to Mr Kloek that it is apparent
from the tax invoice that
the charges levied in terms of it was for services rendered and
copies made according to meter readings.
Mr Kloek expressed the view
that it was his client’s contention that this was payment in
respect of the copier referred to
in claim B.
9.
In my view the correspondence flies in the
face of the contention
raised by the Second Defendant and consequently I cannot find for him
in this regard.
CONDONATION
10.
There was a late condonation application by Mr Kloek for the
late
filing of heads of argument, which was not opposed by Mr Botha.
COSTS
11.
Mr Kloek
contended that the costs should be awarded on the High Court scale
for the abandonment of Claims A2, B2 and C2 and that
for the balance
judgment is entered in terms of Claims A, B and C, the costs should
be on the Magistrate’s Court scale.
12.
In the result I
make the following order:
1.
The Plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by Claims
A2, B2
and C2 vis-à-vis the Second Defendant on Scale A.
2.
The application for condonation for the late filing of heads is
granted, the
wasted costs to be paid by the Second Defendant.
3.
Judgment is granted in favour of the Plaintiff against the Second
Defendant as
follows:
CLAIM A
3.1. Payment in the
amount of R56 710.98;
3.2. Interest at the
prime interest rate plus 2% per annum from 19 October 2022 till
payment thereof;
CLAIM B
3.3. Payment in the
amount of R108 161.80;
3.4. Interest at the
prime interest rate plus 6% per annum from 19 October 2022 to date of
payment thereof;
CLAIM C
3.5. Payment in the
amount of R149 739.36;
3.6. Interest at the
prime interest rate plus 6% per annum from 19 October 2022 to date of
payment thereof;
4.
The Second Defendant is ordered to pay the
costs of this application
on a Magistrate’s Court scale.
AP
DEN HARTOG
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION JOHANNESBURG
Electronically
submitted:
Delivered:
this judgment was prepared and authored by the Acting Judge whose
name is reflected and is handed down electronically
by circulation to
the parties/their legal representatives by e-mail and by uploading it
to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. The date of the
judgment is deemed to be
28
MAY 2024.
Counsel for the
Plaintiff:
Mr J G Botha
Counsel for the
First Defendant:
No appearance
Counsel for the
Second Defendant:
Adv J W Kloek