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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 552
|
|
Agardo Investments (Pty) Ltd v National Stokvel Association of South Africa (2023/034657) [2025] ZAGPJHC 552 (9 June 2025)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NUMBER: 2023-034657
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES /
NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED
.
In
the matter between:
AGARDO
INVESTMENTS (PTY)
LTD
Applicant
and
NATIONAL
STOKVEL ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA
Respondent
Heard:
20 January 2025
Delivered:
09 June 2025
JUDGMENT
YACOOB,
J:
[1]
The applicant, Agardo Investments (Pty) Ltd
(“Agardo”) is an investment company that also offers
advice to investors.
It focuses on what it terms “the township
economy”. The respondent, the National Stokvel Association of
South Africa
(“NASASA”), according to Agardo’s
founding affidavit, is the holder of a co-operative banking licence
and “represents
a constituency of over 800 000 stokvel
groups consisting of over 11 million individuals”.
[2]
Agardo seeks an order compelling NASASA to
deliver to it information relevant to NASASA’s relationship to
Old Mutual Limited,
a financial services provider that is not joined
to these proceedings. It seeks copies of all agreements between
NASASA and Old
Mutual, and an official bank stamped record of all
payments made by Old Mutual to NASASA.
[3]
According to Agardo, there is a formal
commercial relationship between it and NASASA, as set out in an
engagement letter dated 1
March 2022 sent to Nsika Masonda of NASASA.
The founding affidavit alleges that the letter was “accepted”
on 22 March
2022 by Mr Masondo. It does not say how it was accepted
and there is no evidence of the acceptance having been in writing.
[4]
Mr
Masondo is the deponent of the respondent’s affidavit. Oddly,
he claims no knowledge of these allegations and that he can
neither
admit nor deny them. The allegations of which he claims no knowledge
are not only those which deal with his own conduct,
but also those
which deal with NASASA having a co-operative banking licence and set
out its constituency. This is obviously “so
far-fetched or
clearly untenable that the court is justified in rejecting [it]
merely on the papers.”
[1]
It is also a red flag to the court regarding whether any of the
contents of the answering affidavit can be taken seriously.
[5]
However, the contents of the 3 page
answering affidavit does not exercise the court much in this regard,
as it contains no real
averment of fact whatsoever. The only factual
averment, apart from the deponent’s identity, is that the
deponent of the founding
affidavit, Tiro Motlogeloa, one of the
directors of Agardo, was an employee of Old Mutual and that Mr
Masondo dealt with him only
on that basis.
[6]
Agardo claims that it facilitated NASASA’s
relationship with Old Mutual in terms of the engagement letter, and
that it is
entitled to payment in terms of the engagement letter of a
percentage of the capital raised as a result of this relationship. It
is for this reason that it seeks the order that NASASA provide it the
information.
[7]
Despite NASASA’s failure to deal with
the factual averments set out in the founding affidavit, in my view
Agardo fails to
make out a case for the relief sought. Mr Motlogeloa
confirms that at all times he was an employee of Old Mutual, yet he
claims
that he was working on behalf of Agardo when interacting with
NASASA. There is no evidence of that. Further, there is no evidence
that NASASA ever accepted any offer made by Agardo, or agreed to the
terms of the engagement letter. There is nothing from NASASA
that
supports Agardo’s version. The existence of a contract has to
be proved by showing that both parties have agreed to
it. There is
nothing before me in support of this. Even the screenshots of
WhatsApp conversations between Mr Motlogeloa and Mr
Masondo do not
support the contention that Mr Motlogeloa was acting as a
representative of Agardo and not of Old Mutual in his
interactions
with NASASA.
[8]
Even if there was a contract between Agardo
and NASASA, there is no evidence that there is a long term
relationship with Old Mutual.
This application appears to be no more
than a fishing expedition. The failure to join Old Mutual which
notionally has an interest
as a party to the agreement of which
Agardo seeks a copy is another anomaly that is cause for concern.
Certainly if Agardo acted
as a go-between to introduce NASASA and Old
Mutual one would expect Old Mutual know and confirm that this is what
happened.
[9]
I find that the applicant has not made out
a case for the relief sought.
[10]
Ordinarily, costs would follow the result.
However, I consider that the respondent’s unhelpful and
patently evasive affidavit
is deserving of censure. For that reason I
am satisfied that it is appropriate to make no costs order.
CONCLUSION
[11]
In the result, I order:
1.
The
application is dismissed.
S.
YACOOB
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Delivered:
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically
by circulation to the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for
hand-down is deemed to be 09 June 2025.
APPEARANCES
For
the applicant:
M Matlala, of Matlala and Associates
For
the respondent:
K Reddy
Instructed
by:
Sivuyile Maqungo Inc
[1]
Plascon-Evans
Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd
[1984] ZASCA 51
;
1984
(3) SA 623
(A) at 635C.