CASE NUMBER-initials 0 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
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
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 133235/2024
DATE: 31-07-2025
DATE 31 July 202

In the matter between

VAN ASWEGEN Applicant

And

VAN ASWEGEN AND ANOTHER Respondent


J U D G M E N T EX TEMPORE

WILSON, J: The applicant, a woman in her eighties, seeks an
order against the first respondent, who is her son, for the payment
of R2 833 600 plus interest, together with an order directing the
first respondent to sign an authorisation to change the ownership
of a motor vehicle - a Suzuki SX4 - which is currently in her
possession.

The basis of the applicant’s claim is that she advanced the sum to
which I have referred to the first respondent for the purposes of
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3) REVISED.

CASE NUMBER-initials 1 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
investing it on her behalf.

There are disputes on the papers relating to the amounts
advanced and the purpose for which they were advanced. Broadly
speaking the first respondent says that certain amounts were
advanced to him as loans which he re paid.

The applicant denies this and says that they were investments
made on her behalf and that the payments that the first
respondent says were re payments on the loans were in fact the
interest on her investments.

That dispute does not extend to the full amount the applicant
claims. The respondent concedes in his affidavit, and Mr
Coleman who appeared on behalf of the first respondent,
accepted in argument , that the first respondent cannot resist an
order directing the repayment of R500 000 to the applicant plus
interest.

The dispute in this case really relates to the remaining R2 353
600 that the applicant claims. Mr Kloek , who appeared for the
applicant , sought to persuade me on the papers that the factual
version advanced by the first respondent in relation to that lower
amount was so far -fetched and untenable that I may reject it on
the papers.

I am unable to agree. The arguments Mr Kloek advanced
effectively entailed conclusions as to the credibility of the first
respondent ’s factual version. They did not persuade me of the
absence of a genuine factual dispute.

However, in light of the fact s that the dispute is easily defined;
the amount of money in dispute is easily quantified; that some of
the money is accept ed as being due to be paid back; and that

CASE NUMBER-initials 2 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
there is no dispute that the applicant did advance most of if not
all of the money to the first respondent, this would not be a proper
case in which to dismiss the application because the factual
disputes that have arisen were foreseeable .

Nor is it appropriate to refer the matter to trial , given that the
issues in dispute are narrow and easily defined; that t he only
relevant witnesses are the applicant and the first respondent
themselves ; and th at there are two and a half lever -arch files of
documentation tendered in support of each of the parties’ claims.

This is a proper case, in my view, to refer the disputes I have
identified to oral evidence to be heard by me as soon as possible.
The need to hear the matter as soon as possible does not only
flow from the fact that the applicant is of advanced age. It is also
necessary in circumst ances where a matter could be resolved on
paper but for narrow factual disputes . In these circumstances, it is
necessary for c ourts to act with expedition to resolve those
disputes with a brief and quickly arranged evidentiary hearing.

I discussed with Mr Coleman and Mr Kloek the appropriate ambit
of a referral order. It would not be fair to say that either of them
agreed to the order that I am about to make. but I am nonetheless
grateful for their assistance in helping me fashion it. Having said
that, paragraph 1 of the order is neither seriously resisted on the
papers . Nor was it resisted in written or oral argument.

For those reasons I make the following order:
1. The first respondent is forthwith to make payment to the
applicant of R500 000 plus interest thereon at a rate of
11,5% per annum to run from 5 November 2024 to date of
final payment .
2. The first respondent is ordered forthwith to provide the
applicant with a duly signed notification of change of

CASE NUMBER-initials 3 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
ownership/sale of motor vehicle in terms of the National
Road Traffic Act , 1996 in order to register a white Suzuki
SX4 with registration number F […] into the applicant’s name.
3. The issue of whether and on what basis the first
respondent owes to the applicant the sum of R2 353 600 is
referred to the hearing of oral evidence before me on 14 and
15 October 2025.
4. The parties may discover such documents as they may
wish to present to the witnesses to be called to give oral
evidence by no later than Friday, 21 August 2025.
5. Either part y may apply on notice of no less than five days
to the other party to call such further witnesses as may be
necessary to determine the issue referred to oral evidence.
That application must be in writing and must reach the
offices of Wilson J by no later than 22 August 2025. A ruling
on whether the witnesses sought to be called will be
permitted to give evidence will be made by no later than 29
August 2025.
6. The applicant and the first respondent are directed to
appear before Wilson J on 14 and 15 October 2025 for the
purposes of being cross -examined on the version advanced
by them in the affidavits currently before c ourt.
7. The matter is postponed to 14 October 2025 with costs
reserved.

WILSON, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
31 July 2025