About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAECMKHC 99
|
|
Business Partners Ltd v Horner-Sikenqe and Others (1481/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 99 (20 August 2024)
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
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION
– MAKHANDA)
Reportable
/
Not
Reportable
Case no.: 1481/2024
Matter heard on: 13
August 2024
Judgment delivered on:
20 August 2024
In
the matter between:
BUSINESS
PARTNERS LTD
(REGISTRATION
NUMBER:
1981/000918/06)
Applicant
and
AYANDA
HORNER-SIKENQE
(IDENTITY
NUMBER: 8[…])
First
Respondent
THEMBEKILE
SIKENQE
(IDENTITY
NUMBER: 7[…])
Second
Respondent
SIVIWE
DESI
(IDENTITY
NUMBER: 8[…])
Third
Respondent
GUERILLA
ACT PROPRIETARY LIMITED
(REGISTRATION
NO.: 2017/217097/07)
Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
BRODY AJ
1.
This is a matter in
which the applicant sought default judgment on an unopposed basis on
the 13
th
of August 2024.
2.
The applicant
previously obtained judgment against first and third respondents
jointly and severally, the one paying, the other
to be absolved on
the 14
th
of May 2024 for the payment of the capital sum, interest and costs.
3.
There was appearance on
behalf of the second respondent and I accordingly granted a judgment,
by default against the fourth respondent,
with costs, and as set out
in the draft order.
4.
The second respondent
acted in person to oppose judgment being granted against him, and he
indicated that he was aware of his right
to appoint a legal
representative, and wavered his right to do so.
5.
The second respondent
then argued the matter personally.
6.
The second respondent
indicated that he was aware of the judgment that had been handed down
previously against the fourth respondent.
7.
The second
respondent indicated that he had no valid defence in the action
against him by the applicant, however, wanted further
time in which
to sell a property which was registered in the name of the fourth
respondent. His argument was that an arranged sale
would be more cost
effective and would obtain a better price than a sale by the sheriff
in terms of the rules of court.
8.
The second respondent
was a surety to the principal debt, and as set out in the applicants’
particulars of claim. This suretyship
was not challenged by the
second respondent, in argument.
9.
There can be no merit
in the second respondent’s argument that he is entitled to
prevent judgment from being granted against
him in circumstances
where he was merely requesting an indulgence to be permitted to sell
a property belonging to the fourth respondent,
which I was advised,
was in any event in liquidated.
10.
In the absence of a
valid defence I am inclined to grant judgment against the second
respondent, jointly and severally, with the
other respondents, the
one paying the other to be absolved.
11.
In the result, I make
the following order.
1.
Judgment is granted
against the second respondent, jointly and severally, with the
remaining respondents, the one paying the other
to be absolved, for,
payment of the sum of R2 633 000.01.
2.
Payment of interest on
the amount of R2 633 000.01 calculated at the rate of prime
interest as charged at the Standard Bank
of South Africa Limited plus
1% per annum from 25
th
October 2023 to date of payment, both dates inclusive.
3.
The second respondent
should pay the costs of suit, on a scale as between attorney and
client.
B.B. BRODY
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
for the Applicant
:
Adv. Coutts
Instructed
by
:
Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs Inc.
c/o
De Jager & Lordan Inc.
2
Allen Street
MAKHANDA
(REF.:
ST/cb/B771
Second
Respondent
:
In Person