REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO:A000089/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: Yes [NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: ¥28/NO
(3) REVISED. —~
ATI IGNATURE
In the matter between:
MUNRO TRANSPORT CC Appellant
And
ROBIN SWIEGERS Respondent
CORAM: MABESELE AND MOTHA JJ
JUDGMENT
MABESELE J: (Motha J, concurring)
A,
[1] This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Court below, dated 9
November 2022. The appeal is not opposed. The appellant's legal representative
deposed to an affidavit, stating that, on 18 October 2023, at 11:52, the appeal
documents were served on the respondent's attorney, Ms. Shakera Timo, via e-mail.
On 22 October 2023 an email was received by the appellant's attorneys, from Ms.
Shakera Timo, stating that their office did not hold instructions to oppose the appeal.
The appellant applied for condonation for late filing of this appeal. Having considered
the reasons advanced in the papers we were unable to refuse the application.
[2] Central to this appeal is the admissibility of hearsay evidence and failure by the
Court to apply the provisions of the Magistrates Court Rules correctly to the evidence
as it considered documents which were discovered as undisputed and proven
evidence, thereby ignored authorities that an admission of documents under Rule
23(9) does not amount to an admission of the contents of the documents and still
needs to be proven through application of rules of evidence.
[3] The matter in the Court below centred around a contractual dispute between Mr.
Robin Swiegers and Munro Transport.
[4] Mr. Robin Swiegers, a plaintiff in the Court below, averred that he entered into an
oral agreement with Mr. Pierre Botes, an employee of P. Munro Transport, who was
duly authorized to enter into such agreement. The agreement was concluded on 21*
August 2018. The material terms were that Mr. Swiegers would act as a facilitator for
the purpose of securing a contract between the company known as Van Reenen Steel
and P. Munro Transport, in terms of which Mr. Swiegers would transport goods from
2
Munro Transport CC to Van Reenen Steel. Mr. Munro would invoice Van Reenan Steel
for services rendered and pay Mr. Swiegers an agent's fee in an amount of R
50 000.00(FIFTY THOUSAND RAND) per delivery, upon receipt of payment from Van
Reenen Steel. In his plea, Mr. Munro denied being indebted to Mr. Swiegers on the
basis that Mr. Botes had no authority to enter into any agreement with Mr. Swiegers
on behalf of P. Munro Transport.
[5] Mr. Swiegers’ evidence was that Mr. Munro knew about the agreement in question.
He forwarded a WhatsApp message to Mr. Botes about his commission and forwarded
a copy to Mr. Munro. Subsequently, he made contact with Mr. Munro, telephonically.
During the telephonic discussion, Mr. Munro promised to pay him the commission as
soon as he received payment from the client. He also went to the premises of P. Munro
Transport to ask for his money. Upon arrival at the premises, Mr. Munro became
hostile with him. He was working for a company known as NatCorp when he concluded
an agreement with Mr. Botes.
[6] Mr. Munro is the sole member of the P. Munro Transport. The company transports
goods to the various customers, including Van Reenen Steel and NatCorp companies.
Mr. Pierre Botes was employed by P. Munro Transport as operations manager. His
duties, according to Mr. Munro, were to ensure that the trucks were being dispatched
to the various destinations and make sure that the company applies for abnormal
permits. It was not part of his duty to enter into contracts on behalf of the company.
Mr. Botes has since left employment due the restructuring of the company that
occurred after COVID-19 epidemic. Mr. Munro testified that neither company nor him
had dealings with Mr. Swiegers. His company did business directly with Van Reenen
3