IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1) REPORTABLE: «+O
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES; (O
(3) REVISED: y.
Date: Signature: __ Ja 21 (oA
F CASE NO: 6696/2022
DATE: 21 JULY 2025
In the matter between:
SASFIN BANK LIMITED First Plaintiff
(Registration No. 1951/002280/06)
SOUTH AFRICAN SECURITISATION PROGRAMME (RF) Second Plaintiff
LIMITED
(Registration No. 1991/002706/06)
and
BAITSHOKI SECONDARY SCHOOL Defendant
Coram: Ternent AJ
Heard on: 6 March 2025
Delivered: 21 July 2025
Summary: Summary Judgment — leave to appeal
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose
name is reflected and is handed down electronically by
circulation to ihe 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 21 July 2025.
Zz
JUDGMENT: LEAVE TO APPEAL
TERNENT, AJ:
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal by the defendant against the
summary judgment and costs orders which | granted, in favour of the
plaintiffs, on 26 September 2023. Leave is sought to the Full Bench of
this division.
[2] At the outset the application for leave to appeal’ appears to take issue
with defences which turn on the facts of the matter. The problem therewith
as set out in the judgment, is that the deponent to the affidavit opposing
summary judgment is the defendant’s attorney of record, Mr MM Baloyi
(“Baloyi”)of MM Baloyi Attorneys Inc. As such he has no knowledge of
the factual material pertaining to the conclusion of the two master rental
agreements and their performance and, accordingly, any evidence in this
regard is not within his personal knowledge and constitutes inadmissible
hearsay.
[3] When | raised this with the defendant's counsel, he accepted that any
evidence given by Baloyi in the opposing affidavit on factual issues should
be disregarded. It was submitted to me, however, that it would suffice for
this Court to simply have regard to the plea that was filed in order to
establish whether or not a bona fide defence has been made out by the
defendant entitling it to defend the action.
[4] The first ground of appeal took issue with the order that the defendant
return the telephone equipment listed under Claim A, as this allegedly
placed the defendant in an invidious position. The submission was that
the defendant only received six SLT phones, and not the remainder of the
‘ CaseLines 101-1 to 101-5
3
telephone system. Accordingly, it was submitted that the defendant
cannot comply with the Court order, and would be found in contempt in
circumstances where the complete telephone system has not been
delivered to it.
[5] This, however, is clear from the defendant’s plea. The defendant's plea,
in an initial preamble, discloses that during the hard lockdown, as a
consequence of the Covid-19 virus, the defendant school was closed.
[6] The plea goes on to aver that:
“23: While the schools were closed down, there was a burglary at the
defendant’s school.
23.1 During the burglary the telephone system was
damaged.
24, The defendant duly reported the burglary to Telelink.
24.1 At all material times, Telelink had ceded the goods to
Sunlyn.
25. On or about November 2021, Telelink informed the defendant
that the goods needed to be replaced at a cost of R48 200,00
(Forty Eight Thousand, Two Hundred Thousand Rand).
26. However, Telelink failed to perform in terms of its undertaking to
replace the goods.
27, By failing to replace the goods, Telelink and by extension,
Sunlyn repudiated the agreement. The defendant accepts the
repudiation.”