IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
Reportable/Not Reportable
Case no: 19891/2024
In the matter between:
NEDBANK LIMITED APPLICANT
and
DUDLEY BERNARD DAVIDS RESPONDENT
Neutral citation:
Coram: MPHEGO AJ
Heard: 5 August 2025
Delivered: 26 August 2025
Summary:
This is an application for summary judgment initiated by Nedbank Limited against Mr
Davids, the respondent . Nedbank claim ed payment of certain amounts of monies (plus
'1pfl~.
I. J., .J.. 1.,.1
'\ .,._ -c
interest and costs) from Mr Davids, who bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor
for the obligations of DC Trustees (Pty) Ltd to Nedbank .
__________________________________________________________ _
ORDER
____________________________________________________________
Order
1 Summary judgment is granted in favour of Nedbank as follows:
CLAIM 1:
a) Payment of the amount of R790,172.40;
b) Interest on the amount in (a) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
plus 8.00% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13 June
2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 2
c) Payment of the amount of R1,079,465.62;
d) Interest on the amount in (c) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
e) plus 0.50% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 3
f) Payment of the amount of R620,825.67;
g) Interest on the amount in (f) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
plus
h) 0.50% per annum , calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 4
i) Payment of the amount of R1,458,969.92;
j) Interest on the amount in (i) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
k) minus 0.35% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from
13 June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 5
l) Payment of the amount of R351,465.34;
m) Interest on the amount in (l) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
n) minus 0.30% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from
13 June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
CLAIM 6
o) Payment of the amount of R347,772.06;
p) Interest on the amount in (o) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
minus 0.30% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
CLAIM 7
q) Payment of the amount of R347,625.69;
r) Interest on the amount in (q) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
minus 0.30% per annum, calculated daily and compounde d monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 8
s) Payment of the amount of R867,687.97;
t) Interest on the amount in (s) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
u) plus 0.60% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly f rom 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
2 Mr Davids is hereby ordered to pay costs of suit incurred to date of this judgment
(on the scale as between attorney and client).
____________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
____________________________________________________________________
Mphego AJ:
[1] This is an application for summary judgment initiated by Nedbank Limited
(“Nedbank”), the plaintiff in the main action. The defendant in the main action is Dudley
Bernard Davids (“Mr Davids”). Nedbank is the applicant and Mr Davids is the
respondent in the application for summary judgment.
[2] In its particulars of claim, Nedbank claimed payment of certain amounts of
monies (plus interest and costs) from Mr Davids, who has bound himself as surety and
co-principal debtor for the obligations of DC Trustees (Pty) Ltd (“the company”) to
Nedbank.
[3] Nedbank’s claim arises from a series of eight written loan agreements entered
into between Nedbank and the company between August 2018 and August 2019. Each
loan agreement required the company to repay the advanced amounts in monthly
instalments, with interest accruing at rates linked to Nedbank’s prime lending rate.
[4] As security, mortgage bonds were registere d over various immovable properties
owned by Mr Davids, and he provided a written suretyship in favour of Nedbank. Mr
Davids liability arises from the written suretyship, in which he renounced the benefits of
exclusion and division, and agreed to be jointly and severally liable with the company for
all amounts owing to Nedbank.
[5] The company defaulted on its repayment obligations under all eight loan
agreements, resulting in arrears and outstanding balances. As a result of the company’s
failure to make repayments under the loan agreements, Nedbank claims that Mr Davids,
as surety and co-principal debtor, is liable for the full outstanding amounts, interest, and
legal costs (on the scale as between attorney and client).
[6] Nedbank’s claim in respect of the 8 loan agreement is structured as follows:
a) In relation to the first loan agreement, an amount of R790,172.40 plus
interest at prime + 8% per annum (19.75%) from 13 June 2024.
b) In relation to the second loan agreement, an amount R1,079,465.62 plus
interest at prime + 0.5% per annum (12.25%) from 13 June 2024.
c) In relation to the third loan agreement, an amount R620,825.67 plus
interest at prime + 0.5% per annum (12.25%) from 13 June 2024.
d) In relation to the fourth loan agreement, an amount R1,458,969.92 plu s
interest at prime - 0.35% per annum (11.40%) from 13 June 2024.
e) In relation to the fifth loan agreement, an amount R351,465.34 plus
interest at prime - 0.3% per annum (11.45%) from 13 June 2024.
f) In relation to the sixth loan agreement, an amount R347,7 72.06 plus
interest at prime - 0.3% per annum (11.45%) from 13 June 2024.
g) In relation to the seventh loan agreement, an amount R347,625.69 plus
interest at prime - 0.3% per annum (11.45%) from 13 June 2024.
h) In relation to the eighth loan agreement, an am ount R867,687.97 plus
interest at prime + 0.6% per annum (12.35%) from 13 June 2024.
[7] The company was liquidated in August 2024 and Nedbank launched action
proceedings in September 2024, on the basis that the company failed to remedy the
breaches, and the full outstanding balances in respect of the loan agreements became
due, owing, and payable. As a result of the company’s breach and subsequent
liquidation, Mr Davids, as surety and co -principal debtor, became liable for the
repayment of the outstanding amo unts, together with interest and legal costs on an
attorney and client scale. Mr Davids is of course the defendant in the action
proceedings launched in September 2024.
[8] Mr Davids filed his plea on 8 November 2024 raising the following defences:
a) He stated in his plea that he had no knowledge as to whether the
representative of Nedbank was duly authorised to sign the loan agreements and,
on that basis, denied the validity of each loan agreement.
b) Mr Davids denied that the company breached the loan agreements.
c) He pleaded that in relation to the first loan agreement, Nedbank wrongfully
froze or blocked the loan account in September 2023, preventing payment, and
thus breached the agreement itself.
d) In relation to the second loan agreement, he asserted that the company
paid the monthly instalments and the account was not in arrears.
e) In relation to the third to eighth loan agreements, he stated that the
company continued to pay monthly instalments until Nedbank wrongfully froze or
blocked the company’s cheque account in January 2024, preventing further
payments. He denied being indebted to the plaintiff under any of the agreements.
f) Nedbank’s conduct in “freezing” the accounts and refusing to accept
performance from the company was prejudicial to him as surety. He claims that
this conduct should discharge any liability he might have as surety, wholly or to
such extent as the court may find equitable.
g) He denied the validity of the suretyship agreement, alleging that Nedbank
failed to give him the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice before
signing, and that he would not have entered into the suretyship had he received
such advice.
h) Nedbank’s claim is defective for failing to attach copies of the mortgage
bonds relied upon and that this is in contravention of Uniform Rule 18(6),
because the mortgage bonds constitute written loan agreements and, in their
absence, Nedbank’s claim is procedurally defective.
[9] Nedbank applied for summary judgment against Mr Davids on 28 November
2024 on the bas is that Mr Davids had not raised any bona fide defence in his plea, and
2024 on the bas is that Mr Davids had not raised any bona fide defence in his plea, and
that there were no triable issues. Nedbank relied on certificates of balance, issued in
terms of the loan and suretyship agreements, as prima facie proof of the amounts due
and payable by Mr Davids.
[10] Nedbank asserted that the defences raised by Mr Davids in his plea are not bona
fide, specifically:
a) In relation to Mr Davids’ assertion that he had no knowledge as to whether
the representative of Nedbank was duly authorised to sign the loan agreements,
Nedbank pointed out that, in the liquidation proceedings, Mr Davids (in his
capacity as sole director of the company) had previously admitted under oath
that Nedbank was represented by authorised representatives during the
conclusion of each of the loan agreements.
b) Mr Davids’ allegations regarding the “freezing” of accounts are factually
incorrect and do not constitute a valid defence. Nedbank explained that, on 26
September 2023, it placed “legal codes” on the company’s loan accounts. This
action prevented further amounts from being debited against those accounts (no
further advances or debits), but that credits (payments) could still be received
into the accounts. Nedbank stated it was always possible for the company or Mr
Davids to make p ayments into the loan accounts, and the accounts were not
“frozen” in the sense alleged by Mr Davids.
c) Mr Davids’ denial of breach and claims of payment are not supported by
evidence, and the transaction histories show arrears. Nedbank stated that the
transaction histories for each loan account (annexed to the particulars of claim)
clearly show that the company was in arrears on the loan agreements. For
example, Nedbank pointed out that the second loan account was in arrears since
December 2022, with arrears of R125,662.60 as at 12 June 2024. In relation to
the third loan agreement, Nedbank pointed out that at time the action
proceedings were instituted, it was also in arrears. Nedbank stated that, in any
event, the outstanding balance under the third agreeme nt became due and
payable as a result of the company’s breach of the other loan agreements, in
payable as a result of the company’s breach of the other loan agreements, in
accordance with the cross-default provisions in the agreements.
d) Mr Davids’ denial of breach is a “bald denial” and not supported by any
evidence or engagement with the actual account records.
e) Nedbank pointed out that Mr Davids’ claim that monthly instalments were
paid every month is inconsistent with his other defence that the accounts were
“frozen” and payment was prevented. Nedbank stated that if the accounts we re
truly frozen, Mr Davids could not have made the payments he claims to have
made.
f) Nedbank submitted that a defendant who pleads payment as a defence
bears the onus of proving that payment took place and that Mr Davids failed to
provide any proof of payment or evidence that the accounts were not in arrears.
g) Nedbank asserted that the challenge to the validity of the suretyship (lack
of independent legal advice) is not a legal basis to escape liability, especially
given Mr Davids’ experience as an attorney and businessman. Nedbank pointed
out that there is no legal requirement that a creditor must ensure a surety
receives independent legal advice before signing, unless specifically required by
statute or contract (which was not the case here).
h) In relation to Mr Davids’ claim that Nedbank’s claim is procedurally
defective because it failed to attach the mortgage bonds to the particulars of
claim, Nedbank pointed out that Mr Davids had admitted signing the loan
agreements and suretyship agreement, and had ackno wledged the existence of
the mortgage bonds in his plea. In heads of argument Nedbank asserted that the
mortgage bonds are not central to the relief it seeks because it is not enforcing
the mortgage bonds but is instead pursuing a monetary claim based on t he loan
agreements and suretyship.
i) Nedbank stated that Mr Davids’ denials of breach are not bona fide, are
unsupported by facts, and do not raise any genuine issue for trial and maintained
that the documentary evidence (transaction histories and certificat es of balance)
is clear and uncontradicted.
is clear and uncontradicted.
[11] Mr Davids appeared in person at the hearing of the application for summary
judgment and Nedbank was represented by Adv Rabie.
Submissions advanced on behalf of the Nedbank
[12] Adv Rabie, appearing on behalf of Nedbank, advanced arguments that Mr
Davids’ defences are not bona fide, are either bald denials or legally irrelevant, and do
not raise any genuine dispute of fact or law. He submitted that Uniform Rule 18(6) does
not apply to the mortgage bonds, as Nedban k is not relying on the mortgage bonds for
the relief sought but rather on the eight loan agreements. Therefore , Nedbank’s
exclusion of the mortgage bonds does not constitute a procedural defect. Nedbank
clarified that although the mortgage bonds were regi stered as security, it is not seeking
to enforce the bonds.
[13] He pointed out that the breaches of each loan agreement are expressly pleaded
and supported by transaction histories and certificates of balance, which constitute
prima facie proof of indebtedness. He submitted that according to the terms of the loan
agreements, cancellation is not a prerequisite for the full outstanding balances to
become due and that the company’s liquidation itself is a breach, triggering the surety’s
(Mr Davids’) liability. Adv Davies pointed out specific clauses in the loan agreements
which indicate liquidation as a breach and that the clauses establish that the liquidation
of the company triggered the immediate repayment obligations under the loan
agreements.
[14] In addition, he pointed out that in terms of the loan agreements, when the
company defaulted on one of the eight loans, the default infects all of the eight loans.
He explained that the loan agreements contain cross-default provisions, meaning that a
default under one loan agreement constitutes a default under all the loan ag reements
and this is a common feature in multi -loan facilities to protect the lender’s interests. He
explained the reference to the breach clause in each of the agreements (for instance,
clause 11 in the first agreement and clause 17 in the others), which allows Nedbank to
clause 11 in the first agreement and clause 17 in the others), which allows Nedbank to
claim immediate repayment of all outstanding amounts if there is non -compliance by the
company in respect of any of the loan agreements.
[15] Adv Rabie argued that the placement of legal codes did not prevent the company
from making the requi red instalment payments. The company could still pay into the
accounts, and the legal codes only stopped further debits, not credits. Adv Rabie
referred the court to account statements annexed to the particulars of claim which
showed that (1) the company c ontinued to transact on the accounts after the alleged
“freezing” dates, (2) payments and other transactions were still being processed, and
(3) the arrears increased due to returned debit orders and non -payment, not because of
any block on the ability to pay. He also highlighted pages in the record which indicated
activity in relation to the company’s cheque accounts until July 2024.
[16] In relation to the second loan agreement Adv Rabie took the court to a bank
statement which indicat ed that the second loan was in arrears. In relation to the third
loan account, he took the court to a bank statement which indicated that the third loan
account was in arrears when the action proceedings were instituted.
[17] Finally, Adv Rabie requested this court to make an order for costs on an attorney
and client scale as provided for in the loan agreements.
Submissions advanced by Mr Davids
[18] Mr Davids appeared in person, unrepresented.
[19] He contended that Nedbank had the election either to cancel the loan
agreements or to claim specific performance. He stated that Nedbank did not cancel the
loan agreement but rather elected specific performance then blocked the accounts and
prevented payment. He state d that Nedbank acted contrary to the election it made and
repudiated the agreements.
[20] He submitted that by blocking the bond and cheque accounts after “electing”
specific performance, the applicant wrongfully prevented the company from fulfilling its
obligations, and thus prejudicing him. He characterises this as a repudiation of the
agreements and invokes the “prejudice principle” , arguing that such conduct is unfair
and prejudicial, to him as surety. He contended that this conduct should either wholly or
partially discharge his liability and that the matter should proceed to a full trial t o
determine the extent of the prejudice and its legal consequences.
[21] Mr Davids also submitted that the first loan account fell into arrears at the fault of
the bank. He stated that he signed a debit order authorization form and thereafter
Nedbank did not perform its obligations in relation to such form, by not debiting his
account. He highlighted that in relation to the second loan agreement the months in
which Nedbank failed to debit are – October 2023, November 2023, February 2024.
[22] He submitted that Nedbank was obliged to debit certain amounts but it did not do
so and this failure by the bank amounts to a repudiation of the loan agreement in terms
of which the failure occurred. He took the court through the months on which he alleges
Nedbank was obliged to debit but did not, namely, the “problem”, or “repudiation”
months. He indicated that:
a) In relation to the third loan agreement – March to June 2021.
b) In relation to the to the fifth loan agreement – August 2023 and February
2024.
c) In r elation to the sixth loan agreement – September to December 2023,
January and February 2024.
d) In relation to the seventh loan agreement – September to December 2023,
January and February 2024.
e) In relation to the eighth loan agreement – September to November 2023,
January and February 2024.
[23] He argued that the company was willing and able to pay the required amounts
during the above months, however, it was prevented from doing so by Nedbank. He
asserts that any arrears in relation to the above loan agreement were a direct result of
Nedbank’s conduct, not the company’s default. He concluded that the above -
repudiation, prejudice, procedural defects, and the factual disputes about payment and
breach - are all triable and require proper ventilation at trial.
[24] The court noted that Mr Davids abandoned some of the defen ces he initially
raised in his plea and/or his affidavit opposing the application for summary judgment.
Replying submissions advanced on behalf of Nedbank
[25] In reply, Adv Rabie briefly addressed three issues:
a) He countered Mr Davids’ claims that the accounts were “blocked” or
“frozen”, providing account statements showing continued activity and clarifying
that “legal codes” did not prevent payment. He pointed out that these issues were
raised and dismissed in the liquidation proceedings.
b) He rebutted the argument that Nedbank failed to “pay itself” or debit the
loan agreements in which there was alleged “repudiation”. He advanced an
interpretation which is acceptable to this court relating to the relevant bank
statements, indicating that there was not enough money in the cheque account to
service each of the accounts tied to the loan agreements. He argued that Mr
Davids interpretation of the bank statement is incorrect and that where there are
identical amounts which are debited and credit it is an indication that the bank
attempted to debit the account but failed due to there not being enough funds to
service each loan.
c) Adv Rabie further indicated that the argument about the “repudiation”
months was raised for the first time at the time of oral submissions being made
by Mr Davids and that such submissions are not in the affidavit opposing
summary judgment.
When will a court grant summary judgment?
Liquidated amount
[26] Nedbank was required to show that its claim is clear, based on a liquidated
amount of money, or that the claim is based on a liquid document. The claim must be
set out with sufficient particularity in the particulars of claim.
[27] In Lester Investments (Pty) Ltd v Narshi 1951 (2) SA 464 (C) it was clarified that
a liquidated amount in money is, briefly stated, an amount which is either agreed upon
or which is capable of prompt ascertainment or a matter of calculation. The amount
must be either expressly agreed upon by the parties (for example, a fixed sum in a
contract), or it must be capable of being ascertained by a simple calculation, without the
need for further investigation, evidence, or the exercise of discretion by the court1.
[28] Nedbank has shown this court that the company entered into 8 different loan
agreements as pleaded and that Mr Davids entered into a deed of suretyship in terms of
which he bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor for the company’s obligations
towards Nedbank. Nedbank indicated that it is not enforcing the security provided by
mortgage bonds and is only seeking judgment for the monetary amounts due to it in
respect of the loan agreements pursuant to the deed of suretyship signed by Mr Davids.
The statements of account and certificates of balance annexed to Nedbank’s particulars
of claim reflect the amounts that are due and constitute prima facie proof of the amounts
due in respect of each of the accounts.
[29] Mr Davids did not raise a substantial rebuttal to the above , save to challenge the
clarity and completeness of Nedbank’s claim raising that Nedbank’s particulars of claim
does not reveal a cause of action in relation to the third loan agreement since no breach
is pleaded. Nedbank rebutted this by stating that the loan was in arrears at the time the
summons was issued , with reference to pages in the record.
summons was issued , with reference to pages in the record.
1 Also see: Fatti's Engineering Co (Pty) Ltd v Vendick Spares (Pty) Ltd 1962 (1) SA 736 (T) at 739F;
Leymac Distributors Ltd v Hoosen and Another 1974 (4) SA 524 (D) at 527A - E; Commercial Bank of
Namibia Ltd v Trans Con tinental Trading (Namibia) and Others 1992 (2) SA 66 (Nm)
Is there a bona fide defence and a triable issue?
[30] The court in First National Bank of SA Ltd v Myburgh and Another 2002 (4) SA
176 (C) set out that a bona fide defence in the context of a summary judgment
application is a defence that is both genuine (advanced honestly and not as a delaying
tactic) and good in law (if proven at trial, it would constitute a valid answer to the
plaintiff’s claim).
[31] Mr Davids was required to satisfy th is court, that he has a bona fide defence to
the action and must fully disclose the nature and grounds of the defence and the
material facts relied upon. His defence must be plausible and, if proven at trial, it should
constitute a valid defence in law.
[32] In the PH Finance (Pty) Ltd v Masilela 2023 JDR 2108 (WCC) case, this division
refused to grant summary judgment because the defendant raised a bona fide defence
in the form of material misrepresentation which presented a triable issue. The court
stated that: “The defendant in its defence made serious allegations as to the legitimacy
and / or the status of the loan agreement. This Court cannot close its eyes and shut out
a defendant who can demonstrate that there is a triable issue.”
[33] As set out in paragraphs [19] and [20] above, Mr Davids submitted that Nedbank
had the election to either cancel the loan agreements or claim specific performance,
and elected specific performance. He argued that despite this elec tion, Nedbank
blocked the loan accounts and this conduct by Nedbank acting inconsistently and
prejudicially is a recognised defence for a surety. He submitted that this conduct is
unfair, unreasonable, and prejudicial to both the company and himself as sur ety. Mr
Davids argued that due to Nedbank’s repudiation and prejudicial conduct, any liability
he might have had in relation to the suretyship is discharged, either wholly or to an
extent the court finds equitable.
[34] Nedbank on the other hand, argued that Mr Davids’ has not raised any valid or
bona fide defence to the claims. Nedbank acknowledged that “legal codes” were placed
on the accounts after they were handed over which prevented further debits (i.e.,
withdrawals or new transactions) on the accounts, but that the legal codes did not
prevent credits (i.e. payments into the accounts). To this end, Nedbank submitted that
payments could still be made towards the arrears or outstanding balances, and
therefore Mr Davids was not prevented from performing obli gations under the loan
agreements. Nedbank took this court through documentation showing that the company
continued to transact on the accounts after the alleged “blocking,” undermining Mr
Davids’ claim that performance was rendered impossible. Nedbank further clarified that
the placement of “legal codes” was a standard legal recovery step and did not amount
to a repudiation or prevent payments towards the loan accounts.
[35] Nedbank rejected Mr Davids ’ argument that it acted inconsistently by electing
specific performance and then “blocking” the accounts. Nedbank’s position is that the
loan agreements expressly provide that, upon breach, all outstanding amounts become
immediately due and payable, witho ut the need for cancellation. This court was taken
through the specific documents supporting Nedbank’s position. It also was submitted
that Mr Davids ’ argument conflates the right to claim the full outstanding amount (as
provided for in the agreements) with an obligation to keep the accounts open for all
transactions, which is not supported by the contract.
[36] In Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd 2020 (6) SA 624
(WCC) this division granted summary judgment on the basis that there was nothing in
the papers to justify withholding summary judgment . The court confirmed that the
defendant is not require d to show that the defence will probably succeed, but must set
defendant is not require d to show that the defence will probably succeed, but must set
out facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a defence . The papers in this
application, unfortunately do not indicate that a triable issue exists.
[37] Having regard to the totality of Mr Davids’ submissions and arguments , this court
is not persuaded that Nedbank has a repudiation case to potentially answer to in trial or
that it has prejudiced the surety (Mr Davids). The documentation presented by Nedbank
before this court overwhelmingly indicates the contractual parameters within which the
amounts claimed by Nedbank became due and that the “legal codes” that were placed
on the accounts after they were handed over did not prevent repayments to be made in
terms of the loan agreements (or credits into the accounts). This court is not satisfied
that a defence (which is bona fide and good in law2) arises, which when proven at trial,
could constitute a valid answer to the Nedbank’s claim.
Order
[38] The following order is made:
Summary judgment is granted in favour of Nedbank as follows:
CLAIM 1:
a) Payment of the amount of R790,172.40;
b) Interest on the amount in (a) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
plus 8.00% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13 June
2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 2
c) Payment of the amount of R1,079,465.62;
d) Interest on the amount in (c) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
e) plus 0.50% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 3
f) Payment of the amount of R620,825.67;
g) Interest on the amount in (f) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
plus
2 First National Bank of SA Ltd v Myburgh and Another 2002 (4) SA 176 (C)
h) 0.50% per a nnum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 4
i) Payment of the amount of R1,458,969.92;
j) Interest on the amount in (i) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
k) minus 0.35% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from
13 June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 5
l) Payment of the amount of R351,465.34;
m) Interest on the amount in (l) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
n) minus 0.30% per annum, cal culated daily and compounded monthly from
13 June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
CLAIM 6
o) Payment of the amount of R347,772.06;
p) Interest on the amount in (o) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
minus 0.30% per annum, calculated da ily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
CLAIM 7
q) Payment of the amount of R347,625.69;
r) Interest on the amount in (q) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
minus 0.30% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive.
CLAIM 8
s) Payment of the amount of R867,687.97;
t) Interest on the amount in (s) above at the Plaintiff's prevailing prime rate
u) plus 0.60% per annum, calculated daily and compounded monthly from 13
June 2024 to date of payment, both days inclusive;
[39] Mr Davids is hereby ordered to pay costs of suit incurred to date of this judgment
(on the scale as between attorney and client).
_____________________________
TR MPHEGO
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For the applicant : Adv D.J. Rabie
Instructed by : STBB
N Grundlingh
For the respondent : Mr. D.B. Davids (in person)