SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 12913/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 19 November 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
THE SMALL ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF
FINANCE AGENCY SOC LIMITED IN MAIN ACTION
REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2024/614733/30
-and-
LNP BRAND PRINTING SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD 1ST RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016/432816/07 IN MAIN ACTION
MARTIN NAPHTALE MASHISHI 2ND RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT
IDENTITY NUMBER: 7[...] IN MAIN ACTION
Delivered : 19 November 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties' legal representatives by e -mail. The date and time
for hand down of the judgment is deemed to be 19 November
2025 at 10:00 am.
Date heard : 23 October 2025
Coram : Bresler AJ
JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
[1] The Applicant (Plaintiff in the Main Action) applies for Summary Judgment
against the 1st and 2nd Respondent (Defendants in the Main Action) for:
1.1 Claim A:
1.1.1 Repossession of:
a) 1 x MIMAKI JVS-320DS lnkjet Printer (Serial No. J[…]);
b) 1 x MOT-3242-M Heat Press (Serial No. R[…]);
c) 1 x Maintenance Agreement for a period of 3 (three) years;
d) 2 x CT904AS FEIYA Embroidery Machines (4 -head. 9 -colour
change with LCD and Auto Thread Trimmer, Serial Nos. 6 […] and
6[…]2, respectively);
e) 1 x Digitising Software (Model ART-D60).
1.1.2 Payment of the balance after realisation of the aforesaid goods
at sale in execution;
1.1.3 Interest on the aforesaid amount;
1.1.4 Costs on attorney and own client scale including costs to
counsel on Scale C.
1.2 Claim B:
1.2.1 Payment in the sum of R1,814,364.40 (One Million Eight
Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty -Four Rand
and Forty Cents);
1.2.2 Interest on the aforesaid amount;
1.2.3 Costs of suit on attorney and own client scale including costs to
counsel on Scale C.
1.3 Claim C:
1.3.1 Payment in the sum of R578,013.13 (Five Hundred and
Seventy-Eight Thousand and Thirteen Rand and Thirteen Cents);
1.3.2 Interest on the aforesaid amount;
1.3.3 Costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and own client
including costs to Counsel on Scale C.
[2] The Applicant's claim is premised on three separate agreements concluded
between the Applicant and the 1 st Respondent, being an Instalment Sale Agreement
(Claim A), a Conditional Grant Agreement (Claim B) and a Covid -19 Relief Finance
Agreement (Claim C). The Applicant furthermore pleads that the 2 nd Respondent
bound himself as surety and co-principal debtor in respect of these agreements.
[3] There is no need to expound on the contents of these agreements as their
terms and the conclusion thereof are not genuinely in dispute.
[4] The application for Summary Judgment is opposed by the 1 st and 2 nd
Respondent. If one has regard to the Plea, the 1 st and 2nd Respondent essentially
places the blame for their non-compliance squarely on the shoulders of the Applicant
in so far as it is alleged that inter alia the Applicant failed to perform their mandate
from government to ensure that proper support is made available to the funded
SMME and to afford appropriate monitoring thereof. It is also alleged that the
Applicant has been selective and inconsistent in handling similar matters and its
approach to the Respondents must be seen as a 'witch hunt'.
[5] In their opposing affidavit, delivered at a belated stage, the 1 st and 2 nd
Respondents again reiterated that these amounts should be forfeited as the
Applicants failed to assist the SMME. It is furthermore submitted in respe ct of Claim
A that the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim both return of the goods and payment of the
outstanding balance as at date. This much was conceded by counsel for the
Applicant during the hearing of the matter.
[6] This Court is called upon to determine if Summary judgment should be
granted in favour of the Applicant.
[7] Erasmus Superior Court Practice1 states the following on page 32-70:
'In this regard the plea should comply with the provisions of rule 18(4) an d
22(2) i.e it should clearly and concisely state all the material facts relied upon
in order for the plaintiff, in the context of summary judgment proceedings, to
consider whether or not the defense as pleaded raises any issues for trial.
Otherwise, the p urpose of rule 32 in its amended form would be defeated. If
the plea is, for example, one of bare denial which does not raise any issue for
trial, the defendant should not be allowed, in the absence of a notice to
amend the plea in order to properly set out its defence to the action, to rely on
the affidavit resisting summary judgment in which the nature and grounds of a
bona fide defence and the material facts relief upon therefore, which are
unrelated to the bare denial in the plea, are set out. A defendant who intends
to disclose a bona fide defence in its affidavit which is not raised in its plea
should first, deliver a notice of intention to amend the plea in terms of rule
28(1).'
[8] The critical question is therefore if the opposing affidavit, with reference to the
Plea, discloses a bona fide defence that must be determined by a trial court. In this
matter, the Respondents do not deny the conclusion and terms of the agreement,
nor do they deny non -performance with the terms thereof. They are essentially
alleging that they should be excused from performance because the Applicant failed
to assist them in running a successful business.
[9] Applying the law to the matter at hand, th is Court is not convinced that the
opposing affidavit, with reference to the plea, discloses a bona tide defence or a
triable issue for that matter.
[10] A court has a discretion to either grant or refuse summary judgment. This
discretion is not premised on mere conjecture or speculation but must be exercised
on the basis of the material before court. Van Niekerk states2:
on the basis of the material before court. Van Niekerk states2:
1 DE van Loggerenberg, Erasmus Superior Court Pactice, Volume 2, Juta.
2 SJ van Niekerk et a, Summary Judgment - A Practical Guide, Lexis Nexis at
page 11-37
'In the absence of a/legations on which any defence can be based it would be
wrong to exercise a discretion against the plaintiff purel y on the basis of
speculation or assumption - this may result in an injustice being done to the
plaintiff.'
[11] The Application for Summary Judgment must succeed ag ainst both
Respondents.
[12] As to the way Claim A is presented, this Court agrees with the submissions
made by the Respondents that it will constitute a duplication if both return of the
goods as well as recovery of the capital outstanding is claimed simultaneously. It is
customary i n matters like the current one before court, to grant an order for the
return of the goods with the remaining prayers to be postponed sine die. It will be
ordered accordingly in this matter.
[13] The agreement concluded between the parties contains a cons ent to costs
being paid by the Respondents on a higher scale as between attorney and own
client. There is no reason to deviate from the agreement in this respect in so far as
the terms of the agreement are not in dispute between the parties.
Order:
[14] In the result the following order is made:
Summary Judgment is granted against the 1 st and 2 nd Respondent,
jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved for:
14.1 Claim A:
14.1.1 Repossession of the following goods ('the Goods') from the
1st Respondent/ Defendant, as described in Annexures 'A' to 'C'
to the Particulars of Claim ('POC 1'):
a. 1 x MIMAKI JVS-320DS lnkjet Printer (Serial No. J2498238);
b. 1 x MOT-3242-M Heat Press (Serial No. RTR-131);
c. 1 x Maintenance Agreement for a period of 3 (three) years;
d. 2 x CT904AS FEIYA Embroidery Machines (4 -head. 9-colour
change with LCD and Auto Thread Trimmer, Serial Nos. 61461 and
61462, respectively);
e. 1 x Digitising Software (Model ART-D60).
14.1.2 Payment of the balance outstanding after realisation of the
Goods and interest thereon is postponed sine die.
14.1.3 Costs o n attorney and own client scale including costs to
counsel on Scale C.
14.2 Claim B:
14.2.1 Payment in the sum of R1,814,364.40 (One Million Eight
Hundred and Fourteen Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty -Four
Rand and Forty Cents);
14.2.2 Interest o n the aforesaid amount at the rate of 14% per
annum, calculated from 1 October 2024 to date of payment (both
days inclusive), as appears more fully from the Certificate of
Balance annexed as 'POC 14' and 'POC 15';
14.2.3 Costs of suit on attorney a nd own client scale including
costs to counsel on Scale C.
14.3 Claim C:
14.3.1 Payment in the sum of R578,013.13 (Five Hundred and
Seventy-Eight Thousand and Thirteen Rand and Thirteen Cents);
14.3.2 Interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 6,5% per
annum, calculated from 1 October 2024 to date of payment (both
days inclusive), as appears more fully from the Certificates of
Balance marked 'POC 18' and 'POC 19';
14.3.3 Costs of suit on a scale as between attorney and own client
including costs to Counsel on Scale C.
M BRESLER AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT : Adv. M de Jager
INSTRUCTED BY : Cherry-Singh Incorporated
Johannesburg
lynette@cherrysingh.co.za
pa3@ddkk.co.za
FOR THE 1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS: Adv.
INSTRUCTED BY : Machaba lnc
Polokwane
litigation@machabainc.co.za