REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: 070951/24
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
Date:
15 September 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
INTERSHU DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
PETRUS JOHANNES BOTHA N.O
Respondent
(In his capacity as the executor of Estate Late Johannes
Jacobus Strydom)
2
IN RE:
INTERSHU DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff
and
PETRUS JOHANNES BOTHA N.O
1 st Defendant
(In his capacity as the executor of Estate Late Johannes
Jacobus Strydom)
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT 2 nd
Defendant
JUDGEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MOOKI J
1 The plaintiff seeks summary judgement. The claim arises from the plaintiff
and Strydom en Pretorius CC, trading as Pharmavalu Queenswood
(corporation) having concluded an agreement pursuant to which the
plaintiff were to supply the corporation with goods as specified.
2 Johannes Jacobus Strydom bound himself as a surety and co-principal debtor
with the corporation, having renounced the usual benefits. Mr Strydom has
since died. Mr Petrus Johannes Botha was appointed the executor of Mr
Strydom’s estate.
3 The plaintiff alleges
that the corporation breached its obligations by failing
to pay for goods supplied to the corporation. The plaintiff claims the amount
of R253, 237.59 plus interest. The corporation has since been liquidated.
3
The plaintiff seeks payment based on Mr Strydom having bound himself as a
surety and co-principal debtor to the corporation . Mr Botha is cited as the
nominal defendant by virtue of being the executor of Mr Strydom’s estate.
4 The defendant, in the plea, denied that the plaintiff and the corporation
concluded an agreement. It is also denied that Mr Strydom signed any
agreement with the plaintiff.
5 The plaintiff, in the affidavit in support of summary judgement, set out the
respects in which the plea did not raise a triable issue. The plaintiff pointed
out that the capital accrued from 31 January to 1 May 2023; that Mr Strydom
died on 19 November 2023, and that the executor was appointed on 8
December 2023. The plaintiff pointed out that the principal debtor provided
a payment plan on 10 January 2023, and that this was a clear
acknowledgement of debt by the principal debtor.
6 The plaintiff addressed the various defences put up by the executor. Those
included that ownership of goods would pass to the company only on
payment of the purchase price, that the plaintiff has no obligation to notify
creditors; that each delivery of goods was a distinct agreement, in answer to
the contention that the plaintiff supplied goods in excess of R25,000.00,
contrary to the limit in the agreement; that it was irrelevant that orders by
the plaintiff were not made by a person specified in the agreement. More
fundamentally, the plaintiff contended that the executor made a bald denial
in saying Mr Strydom did not sign the agreement and the suretyship.
4
7 The executor, in resisting summary judgement, detailed how he had no
personal knowledge in relation to certain averments and that he was unable
to admit or deny the averments . The executor denied that the plaintiff had
complied with its obligations. He also denied that the plaintiff delivered
goods to the company.
8 The executor denied that Mr Strydom signed any agreement. The executor
also contended that “It is further denied that the respondent as the
appointed executor of the deceased’s estate cannot confidently attest that
the deceased did not sign the credit agreement and suretyship. The
respondent will be able to prove this at trial should leave to defend be
granted.”
Analysis
9 The plaintiff has established its claim clearly, with the executor having failed
to set up a bona fide defence.
1 The executor has not disclosed material facts
which, if proved at trial, will constitute a defence to the plaintiff’s claim.2
10 The plaintiff established its claim that the plaintiff and the corporation
concluded an agreement for the supply of goods, on the terms pleaded by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff had been supplying the corporation with goods at least
since July 2019. It was only in 2023 that the corporation became unable to
pay for the supplied goods . The corporation was aware of being in default
with payments, as shown by the corporation suggesting a payment plan.
1 See Meek v Kruger 1958 (3) SA 154 (T) at 158 F-G, 160 C – D
2 Breytenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T) at 227G
5
There would have been no need for a payment plan absent the corporation
being indebted to the plaintiff.
11 The plaintiff also established the existence of the suretyship. The plea in
relation to the suretyship is essentially a bare denial, namely that Mr
Strydom did not sign the suretyship. The executor did not aver any facts to
support the averment that Mr Strydom did not sign any agreement.
12 Mr Strydom was the guiding mind of the corporation. He was alive when the
plaintiff was sending various correspondence calling on the corporation to
pay-up. The plaintiff, in one such correspondence, pointed out that Mr
Strydom had signed as a surety in relation to corporation’s obligations to the
plaintiff. Mr Strydom did not take issue with this correspondence.
13 The executor makes a bald denial in the plea that Mr Strydom did not sign
the credit agreement or suretyship. The executor says, in the affidavit
resisting summary judgement, that he will demonstrate at trial that Mr
Strydom did not sign the suretyship. The executor has not referenced a single
fact as support that Mr Strydom did not sign the agreements. The executor
does not say what facts will be placed before court at trial to demonstrate
that
Mr Strydom did not sign the agreements.
14 The contentions by the executor are untenable. The company proposed a
payment plan. This was done long before Mr Strydom died. There is no single
document, in the exchanges between the parties about the outstanding
payments before Mr Strydom’s death, in which the company denied the
existence of an agreement for the plaintiff to supply the company with goods.
6
More fundamentally, the plaintiff wrote to the corporation, stating that Mr
Strydom was a surety. Mr Strydom was alive at that time. Mr Strydom, who
was the controlling mind of the company, did not respond to deny the
existence of an agreement between the plaintiff and the company and, more
importantly, deny that he signed a suretyship in relation to the company’s
indebtedness to the plaintiff.
15 Summary judgement proceedings are intended to preserve judicial economy
and to grant relief where a defendant has failed to show that there is a triable
issue. In this instance, the executor says that the issue of whether Mr
Strydom signed the agreements ought to be determined at trial. The executor
does not s
ay why that should be so. The executor does not provide facts that
will be established at trial on this point. It would be perverse to oblige the
plaintiff to submit to a full trial on the issues pleaded by the executor and on
issues contended for by the executor in the affidavit opposing summary
judgement.
16 The plaintiff established its claim clearly. The executor has not disclosed
material facts which, if proved at trial, will constitute a defence to the
plaintiff’s claim.
The executor did not set up a bona fide defence. 3
17 I make the following order:
(1) Summary judgement is granted for the plaintiff.
(2) The first defendant is ordered:
3 See Meek v Kruger and Breytenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk as cited above.
7
a. To pay the plaintiff the sum of R253, 237.59.
b. To pay interest on the sum of R253, 237.59 at the rate of 11.75%
per annum from 27 June 2024 to the date of payment.
c. To pay costs on the attorney and client scale.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Counsel for the applicant: A Myers
(Heads drawn by R Smith)
Instructed by: NVDB Attorneys
Counsel for the defendant: T Carstens
Instructed by: Swanepoel van Zyl Attorneys
Date heard: 26 August 2025
Date of judgement:
15 September 2025