REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2022/7368
(1) REPORTABLE: YS / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER.JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YSS/NO
et
DATE SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
WOA FUELS AND OILS APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
And
AFRICA RISING PETROCHEM (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
(Previously trading as Headbush Sisters Holdings (PTY) LTD
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 7 August 2025.
JUDGMENT
CARRIM AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application for summary judgment brought by the Plaintiff alleging that
the Defendant has put up a spurious defence which has no merit, and which
raises no genuine issues for trial and the defence is not bona fide but rather
contrived to delay the matter unduly.
[2] After considering the matter, | have found this assertion completely without merit
and have accordingly dismissed the application and granted the Defendant leave
to defend the action.
Background
[3] The Plaintiff is a supplier of petrochemical products (“fuel”). On 2 August 2021 it
concluded an agreement with the Defendant, partly written and partly oral. An
almost illegible copy of the written portion of the agreement is attached to the
Particulars of Claim at 001-22. The term of the agreement was for two years,
from 9 August 2021 to 9 August 2023.
[4] The Defendant is a wholesaler of petroleum and fuel and in the business of
selling, transporting and distributing petroleum and fuel products throughout
South Africa.
[5] At the time of concluding the agreement the Defendant was represented by one
of its three directors Thabisa Hanise. The other directors of the Defendant are
Ms VM Lebeloane and Ms Pinkie Bontle Headbush. The Plaintiff was
represented by P S Mudaly and Nischal Sancho. Mr Sancho was previously
employed at Puma Energy SA (Pty) Ltd (“Puma”).
[6] The relevant terms of the agreement are:
2
a. The Defendant would place orders with the Plaintiff for delivery to the
Kudumane Manganese Resources, an open pit mining company in the
Northern Cape (the “mine”) at a minimum of 800 000 litres per month.
b. The Plaintiff would supply and deliver fuel (Gasoil 50) to the mine on behalf
of the Defendant (defined as customer of the Plaintiff)."
[7] The Defendant performed under this agreement for a brief period being August
to November 2021.2 Payments for these volumes were made by the Defendant.
[8] On 9 November 2021, the Defendant under the signature of Ms Lebeloane
advised the Plaintiff that it had an existing exclusive agreement with Puma to
supply fuel to the mine. This agreement had been concluded on 1 June 2020
and was still valid at the time the ‘purported agreement’ (in the letter the
agreement is referred to as purported) was concluded with the Plaintiff. Puma
had brought urgent proceedings against the Defendant. Upon receipt of this, the
Defendant had been advised that the agreement with the Plaintiff was unlawful
and invalid and in breach of the pre-existing agreement with Puma. (the Puma
supply agreement’). Furthermore, that the Plaintiff through its representative Mr
Sancho knew or reasonably ought to have known that the Defendant was bound
by Puma’s standard terms and conditions or the supply agreement at the time of
concluding the purported agreement. The letter further states that the Defendant
had been advised that it should honour its obligations to Puma. The letter then
advises the Plaintiff that the purported agreement was concluded in breach of
the Puma supply agreement and is unlawful and invalid. Consequently, the
Defendant does not consider it bound by it and shall with immediate effect cease
placing any orders from the Plaintiff.
[9] This letter foreshadows the grounds of the defence raised by the Defendant in
its plea.
[10] The Plaintiff issued summons on 23 February 2022. In its Particulars of Claim it
challenges the version of the Defendant set out in the 9 November letter by
1 The Plaintiff was required to ensure that truck drivers underwent training for compliance with
the mine’s requirements.
2001-7
3