SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case no. 2025/027539
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 17 November 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
INSCAPE EDUCATION GROUP (PTY) LTD Applicant
(Reg. no. 2002/028979/07)
and
CAMPUS OF PERFORMING ARTS (PTY) LTD Respondent
(Reg. no. 2009/011772/07)
JUDGMENT
The judgment and order are published and distributed electronically.
PA VAN NIEKERK, AJ
INTRODUCTION:
[1] Applicant is a company with limited liability duly incorporated in terms of the
Laws of the Republic of South Africa with registered address in Florida Park,
Gauteng. Applicant is a registered private Higher Education Institution and have inter
alia secured the premises of three distinct campuses situated respectively in Midrand,
Durban and Pretoria.
[2] Respondent is a company with limited liability duly incorporated in terms of
the Laws of the Republic of South Africa with its registered address situa te at
Midrand, Gauteng. Respondent trades as a contemporary Music College which
provides courses to students who intends to pursue a career in the music business.
[3] In the Notice of Motion Applicant claims the following relief against
Respondent:
"1. That the respondent be ordered to pay and cause the applicant to be
paid the sum of R3 185 232.02, in respect of arrear rentals, owed to the
applicant;
2. Interest on the aforesaid amount at the prescribed mora tore interest
rate, calculated from date of issue of the application to date of final payment;
3. Costs of suit;
4. Further and/or alternative relief."
[4] It is common cause that the Applicant entered into three separate written
lease agreements with Respondent in terms whereof three different camp uses
situated respectively in Midrand, Durban and Pretoria were leased to Respondent.
The purpose of these lease agreements were namely to enable Respondent to
provide the educational programmes in which Respondent specialises.
[5] The Midrand Campus is situated at Stand 4[...], Halfway Gardens, Extension
24, 3 [...] A[...] Road, Midrand, the Durban Campus is situated at Portion 39 of Erf
4[...] Brickfield, situate at 6 [...] - 6[...] P[...] M[...] Ridge, Overport, Durban while the
Pretoria Campus is situated at Erf 8[...], Waterkloof, Pretoria.
[6] The rental agreement in respect of the Midrand Campus commenced on 1
September 2021 and was conclud ed for an initial period of approximately 3 years,
terminating on 31 December 2024. The rental agreement in respect of the Durban
Campus commenced on 1 December 2021 and would have endured for a period of
approximately 2½ years, terminating on 31 May 2024. The rental agreement in
respect to the Pretoria Campus commenced on 1 October 2021 and would have
endured for a period slightly longer than 3 years, terminating on 31 December 2024.
In the Applicant's Founding Affidavit it is alleged that the Respondent e xhibited a
deplorable transactional history by constantly short paying, and/or underpaying
resulting in an arrears amount due and owing to Applicant of R3 185 232.02
calculated as a combined outstanding liability in respect of all three rental
agreements. It is common cause in the application that Respondent vacated the
Durban and Pretoria Campuses on 31 December 2023, and vacated the Midrand
Campus on 31 December 2024.
[7] In amplification of the averment that the arrear rental indebtedness amounts
to R3 1 85 232.02 a certificate of balance was annexed to the Founding Affidavit,
together with a full statement of account. The certificate of balance is a document
bearing the letterhead of Zeelie Auditors,( "the auditor's certificate") is dated 26
February 2025, and contains the following:
"Based on information received by us we confirm the following:
1. Balance owed by Campus of Performing (Ply) Ltd to lnscape Education
Group (Pty) Ltd as at 31 December 2024: R3 185 232.02 (Three Million, One
Hundred and E ighty Five Rand, Two Hundred and Thirty Two Rand and
Two Cents)"
The Statement of Account is a document on the letterhead of Applicant, dated 22
January 2025, bearing the following heading:
"Confirmation of outstanding monies owed to lnscape (Ply) Ltd by the Campus
of Performing Arts (Ply) Ltd'.
The document specifically refers to a Lease Agreement entered into in respect of the
Midrand Campus, a subsequent Lease Agreement amendment in relation to the
Midrand Campus, a Lease Agreement in relation to the Dur ban Campus and a
Lease Agreement in relation to the Pretoria Campus. Annexed to that letter is a
detailed Statement of Account which reflects transactions from the 11 th of October
2021 until 1 December 2024. This Statement of Account includes the following
information:
[7.1] An invoice number under the heading "reference";
[7.2] A short description of every invoice transaction;
[7.3] A debit as well as a credit column where different amounts are reflected
either as a debit or a credit against the balan ce which is also reflected on this
account;
[7.4] Under the heading " campus" the transactions are classified either as
"Midrand', or "Pretoria" or "Durban".
[7.5] Under the heading " description" the Statement of Account refers to inter
alia "utility charges", "rent', and where credits are reflected on the account, a
description of the source of such of credits, being ABSA Bank. On the
aforesaid Statement of Account there is further reference to "Midrand diesel',
"July diesel/MOR', "Elec" (clearly referring to electricity) as well as "generator'.
[8] In summary, a perusal of the Statement of Account confirms the amount
claimed by Applicant, as certified by the Auditor, which consist of various
transactions as reflected in the account in relation to the Midrand Campus, Durban
Campus and Pretoria Campus consisting of rental, diesel -, electricity -, and other
expenses.
[9] Applicant avers that the claim is a liquidated claim as it is certified by the
auditor and therefore stands as prima facie proof of the a mount. Applicant relies in
this respect on a provision in each of the three lease agreements which read as
follows;
"a certificate signed by the Lessor's Auditors of the amount due by the Lessee
and the date on which it is payable in terms thereof shall be prima facie
evidence of the correctness of the contents thereof"
[10] Applicant avers that the amounts remain unpai d, notwithstanding the fact that
Respondent vacated the Pretoria and Durban campuses on 31 December 2023 and
the Midrand campus on 31 December 2024, and notwithstanding the fact that
invoices were rendered to Respondent as reflected in the statement of account.
RESPONDENT'S GROUNDS OF OPPOSITION:
[11] The Opposing Affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent disclose the following
grounds of opposition to the relief claimed by Applicant namely:
[11.1] The auditor's certificate does not comply with the terms of the
respective agreements and therefore does not constitute prima facie evidence
of the arrear rental in respect of the three agreements, as the founding
affidavit refers to one certificate in respect of all three lease agreements
combined. This fact re nders the Respondent to be incapable of determining
how the amount in respect of each separate agreement is computed. Further,
the amount as certified by the auditor is incorrect as it clearly includes
impermissible debits on invoices which are not rental and thus falls outside
the scope of the lease agreements.
[11.2] The Applicant's representative fraudulently misrepresented to
Respondent the floor size of the Midrand campus. On 28 March 2024
Respondent realised that it was paying " too much" as it then tr anspired that
the floor size of the Midrand Campus was not 898 square metres as
misrepresented to Respondent, but was in fact 547 square metres. This,
according to Respondent, voids the agreement in relation to the Midrand
campus. Respondent is silent on r easons why, prior to this date, Respondent
was substantially in arrears on rental payments in respect of all three
agreements and/or why the lease agreements in respect to the Durban - and
Pretoria campuses are not enforceable.
[11.3] The Lease Agreements do not provide for expenses in relation to diesel,
generators costs or any other costs as a result of which Applicant is not
generators costs or any other costs as a result of which Applicant is not
entitled to claim such amounts from Respondent;
[11.4] The municipal charges levied by Respondent has never been
substantiated by mu nicipal accounts provided by Applicant to Respondent
and it was an implied alternatively tacit term of the rental agreements that
municipal charges would be correctly and validly levied by the Municipality.
[12] As a general remark it must be noted that the Respondent's Opposing
Affidavit has the following features:
[12.1] Respondent boldly denies being indebted to Applicant for any amount.
On a perusal of the agreements, which will be dealt with hereunder, this
denial implies that Respondent avers that it has paid each invoice in relation
to each of the three lease agreement within 7 days after such invoice was
rendered. However, there is no challenge to the Applicant's Statement of
Account where same specifically reflects arrear rental payments in respe ct of
each of the three lease agreements, and neither does the Respondent
provide any tangible proof that all rental payments in respect of all three
agreements were duly settled; A perusal of the Respondents answering
affidavit, on closer scrutiny, disclo se that the real dispute raised by
Respondent relates only to Respondent's liability for arrear rental in respect of
the Midrand campus, and other expenses (not being rental) for which
Respondent was invoiced by Applicant in relation to the three lease
agreements.
[12.2] Whereas Respondent challenged the contents of various invoices
rendered by Applicant to Respondent in relation to the three respective
campuses, these challenges was raised for the first time in the Respondent's
Opposing Affidavit notwithst anding the fact that Respondent vacated the
Pretoria Campus and Durban Campus on 31 December 2023 and the
Midrand Campus on 31 December 2024. The Opposing Affidavit is silent on
the reason why these disputes were not previously raised, notwithstanding the
fact that the invoices were rendered by Applicant and received by Respondent.
[13] In response to the Respondent's grounds of opposition as set out above, the
Applicant raised the following arguments;
Applicant raised the following arguments;
[13.1] A "time bar clause" in the Lease Agreements p revents the Respondent
from raising any disputes on its liability to pay the rendered invoices;
[13.2] The terms of the Lease Agreements exclude the Respondent's defence
based on an alleged miscalculation of the rental amount in relation to the
Midrand pro perty and bars the Respondent from relying on any alleged
misrepresentations made when the parties entered into the agreement;
[13.3] The auditor's certificate of balance relied upon by the Applicant
constitutes prima facie evidence of the correctness of t he contents in terms of
the provisions of the agreement. The operational costs consisting of generator
expenses, diesel and ancillary expenses as invoiced by Applicant to the
Respondent is an obligation of the Respondent confirmed in correspondence
between the parties, which Respondent has consistently paid and as a result
of which the Respondent's acquiescence to such payments now bars the
Respondent from disputing such payments.
[13.4] In response to Respondent's criticism on the combined auditor's
certificate, Applicant annexed three separate certificates to the replying
affidavit reflecting the individual liability of Respondent in relation to each
lease agreement, the sum total of which corresponds with the original
combined certificate annexed to the founding affidavit.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
[14] On a proper analysis of the respective affidavits, the following issues as
raised by the Respondent stands to be determined namely:
[14.1] Did the Applicant provide prima facie evidence of the outstanding
amounts by annexing the auditor's certificates? Respondent argued that the
annexing of the three separate certificates to the replying affidavit prejudiced
Respondent as the Applicant had to disclose it's cause of action in the
founding affidavit and not in reply.
[14.2] Having regard to the terms of the respective lease agreements, and
more specifically the Midrand Campus agreement, should the Respondent's
allegation of fraud ulent misrepresentation on the floor size of the Midrand
Campus be upheld? Whereas Applicant argued that the terms of the
Campus be upheld? Whereas Applicant argued that the terms of the
agreement as well as the time bar clause prevents the Respondent from
relying on this ground as a defence, Respondent essentially argu ed that
fraudulent misrepresentation is an absolute defence. During argument it was
common cause that this defence could only be raised in relation to the
Midrand lease agreement.
[14.3] Is the Respondent liable for the operational costs such as generator
expenses, diesel, maintenance and electricity which were included in the
invoices rendered to Respondent?
[15] These issues are dealt with separately below.
PRIMA FACIE PROOF OF AMOUNTS BY AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE:
[16] In paragraph [9] above reference is made to the clause in each lease
agreement which provides for prima facie evidence of the amount outstanding by
way of an auditor's certificate. Respondent's argument that the certificate annexed to
the founding affidavit does not comply with the agreement and that Applicant cannot
rely on the three separate auditor's certificates annexed to the replying affidavit
cannot be upheld. The auditor's certificate in the founding affidavit is accompanied
by a complete statement of account which has the features as set out in paragraphs
[7.1] to [7.5] above. That statement of account clearly reflects all transactions in
relation to all three lease agreements based on invoices which were rendered to
Respondent, and the separate as well as combined liability of Res pondent in respect
to all three lease agreements can readily be determined by reference to that
statement of account. Not only did the Applicant attach this statement of account to
the founding affidavit, but it is common cause in the application that the debits on the
statement of account were reflected in invoices (identified in the statement of
account) rendered on a monthly basis to Respondent.
[17] Respondent is not prejudiced by the three separate auditor's certificates
annexed to the replying affidavit, as they only serve to certify the individual liability of
Respondent in relation to each lease agreement, which individual liability is in any
event also determinable from the statement of account as explained above.
event also determinable from the statement of account as explained above.
[18] Apart from a general statemen t that certain debits for items which do not
constitute rental were impermissibly included on the invoices, Respondent disclosed
no facts to upset the prima facie evidence provided by the auditor's certificates of the
outstanding amounts in terms of the Re spondent's obligations under the three lease
agreement.
TIME BAR CLAUSE
[19] Each of the respective lease agreements contains a " Time Bar Clause" (TBC)
which reads as follows:
"1.3 In the event that the Lessee disputes any amount calculated by the
Lessor in terms of 1.4 then the Lessee shall notify the Lessor in writing of the
item and amount it disputes within 7 (seven) days after the posting by the
Lessor of the Lessee's account therefore, failing which the Lessee shall be
deemed to have waived its right to dispute any such amount. The Lessor shall,
on receipt of such written notification, request its auditors to determine the
amount payable by the Lessee and a certificate signed by the Lessor's
auditors of the amount due by the Lessee and the date o n which it is payable
shall then be prima facie evidence of the amount so due.
1.4 Any amount due by the Lessee to the Lessor in terms hereof shall be
payable within 7 (seven) days after delivery to the Lessee of a notice advising
the Lessee thereof or in the event of a dispute arising, within 7 (seven) days
after the delivery to the Lessee of the certificate referred to in 1.4.2 hereof."
[20] On a proper interpretation of this TBC, Respondent contractually waived its
right to dispute a liability imposed o n it by Applicant when Applicant rendered an
invoice to Respondent which was not challenged by Respondent in terms of the TBC
clause. The TBC contains the contractually agreed procedure and time frame within
which Respondent was allowed to raise any disput e to such a liability failing which
the agreement provides that the right to raise such dispute is waived.
[21] The respective lease agreements further each contain a clause that the lessor
shall be reimbursed for the cost of replacing, repairing or making good any broken,
shall be reimbursed for the cost of replacing, repairing or making good any broken,
damaged or missing items (clause 9.4 of Annexure A to the lease agreements). The
lease agreements each further contain a clause that the lessee shall pay for
replacement of all florescent bulbs, starters, ballads and incandescent bulbs us ed in
the lease premises (clause 9.9 of Annexure A to the lease agreements). In clause 14
of Annexure A to the respective lease agreements it is stipulated that the lessor shall
only be responsible for insurance of the building against fire, and the paymen t of
municipal assessment rates and taxes payable in respect of the property.
[22] On a perusal of the respective lease agreements it is therefore clear that the
lease agreements did not only make provision for the payment of the agreed monthly
rentals in respect of the three different campuses but also envisaged the liability of
Respondent for expenses ancillary to its occupation and use of the respective
campuses without quantifying such liability. It is therefore no surprise that the lease
agreements contain the clauses as set out in paragraph [19] above, as such clauses
would have been unnece ssary in the event of the liability of Respondent being
restricted to a fixed monthly rental. This fact is further illustrated by the contents of
the e -mails preceding the conclusion of the Midrand lease and the amendment of
that lease, annexed by Responde nt to the answering affidavit, were substantial
reference is made to "operational costs" and which costs are fluctuating monthly and
calculated with reference to various items not constituting rental.
[23] A perusal of the Statement of Account, as referred to above, contains items
which are clearly expenses ancillary to the Respondent's occupation of the
respective campuses, such as electricity, generator costs, repairs and maintenance
and diesel (clearly used for the generators). These expenses were includ ed in the
invoices rendered on a monthly basis to Respondent, a fact which is clear from the
statement of account as well as Respondent's answering affidavit where the
Respondent annexes various invoices.
[24] It is common cause that the Respondent never disputed the contents of any of
[24] It is common cause that the Respondent never disputed the contents of any of
the invoices and only raised the issue of the alleged inaccuracy of the invoices
based on an averment that the Respondent was not liable for certain of the
expenses as reflected on the invoices, for the first time in the Resp ondent's
Opposing Affidavit and outside the time limit a nd procedure as agreed in the TBC
clauses of the respective lease agreements.
[25] In terms of the TBC as quoted supra, Respondent is barred from raising such
disputes now, as that right was waived in terms of the TBC. A TBC is enforceable in
law1 and Respondent did not raise any issue on the legality of the TBC as it appears
in the respective lease agreements.
[26] It was argued on behalf of Respon dent that, should it be found that
Respondent was induced by fraudulent misrepresentation on the floor size of the
Midrand Campus to agree to the rental amount in terms of that contract, such
alleged fraudulent misrepresentation would prevent the Applicant from relying on the
TBC or any other term of the agreement to escape the consequences of such
alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. In my view, this argument advanced by
Respondent has the following inherent flaws:
[26.1] The alleged misrepresentation as a defence, should it be upheld, can
only be upheld in respect of the Midrand Campus on the facts as advanced in
the Respondent's Opposing Affidavit. Such defence would therefore not affect
the Applicant's claims in respect of the Durban Campus or the Preto ria
Campus;
[26.2] More significant, the Respondent avers in the Answering Affidavit as
follows:
"26.12 Further on 28 March 2024, Mr Mulligan sent a breakdown of his
calculations which reflected 547 m2, and 48.82 m2 as our percentage of the
common area us ed which amounts to a total of 595.82 m2. A copy of the
email is attached hereto as Annexure "G5".
26.13 Upon assessing the floor plan and Mr Mulligan's breakdown, I realised
that the Respondent had not and was not paying the correct amount of rental
in respect of the Midrand lease.
26.14 This is because the agreement was premised upon an amount of rental
per square metre".
1 See: Barkhuizen v Napier 2007 (5) SA 323(CC)
[26.3] On the Respondent's version the Respondent therefore became aware
of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentation on 28 March 202 4. On a perusal
of the Statement of Account referred to above, the Applicant rendered
invoices in the amount of R167 400.00 (rental based on the agreement as
stipulated in terms of the agreement) during every subsequent month after
March 2024 until Decembe r 2024, and in respect of which the Respondent
paid an amount of R55 000.00 on 26 April 2024. It is common cause that
none of these invoices rendered since March 2024 were ever disputed by
Respondent.
[26.4] In circumstances where Respondent became aware o f the alleged
fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to the calculation of the rental amount
in respect of the Midrand Campus but thereafter inexplicably remained silent
and never protested the subsequent invoices rendered by Applicant to the
Respondent until the date of filing of the opposing affidavit, the Respondent
cannot escape the provisions of the TBC.
[27] It therefore follows that it is clear that Applicant was entitled to raise invoices
against Respondent in respect to all three lease agreements which did not only
include fixed monthly rental, but also other expenses, which invoices Respondent
never disputed in terms of the TBC and in respect of which it is common cause that
Respondent paid such ancillary expenses from time to time. After alleged ly
discovering the Applicant's fraudulent misrepresentation during 28 March 2024,
Respondent continued to occupy the Midrand campus, received invoices based on
the alleged incorrect floor size calculation, failed to dispute such invoices in terms of
the TBC, and even effected a partial payment on one such invoice.
[28] It therefore follows that Respondent waived the right to dispute liability for any
amounts as reflected in the invoices rendered to Respondent by Applicant which
remain outstanding.
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION:
[29] The facts upon which Respondent relies for its assertion that it was
fraudulently induced to enter into the Midrand lease agreement, are succinctly
summarised as follows:
[29.1] Preceding the parties entering into the Midrand lease agreement on 1
September 2021, Applicant's representative addressed email correspondence
to Respondent's representative which contained a calculation of the rental,
based on a cost per square metre. In that calculation, the square metres for
the Midrand Campus were reflected as 898 square metres.
[29.2] On 13 June 2023 the Midrand lease agreement was amended to set a
basic rental payable as R155 000.00 per month from 1 May 2023. In the
negotiations leading up to the amended lease agreement, the Applicant's
representative sent an email dated 15 February 2023 to the Respondent's
representative, once again indicating that the rental amount is based on a rate
per square metre ;
[29.3] In this regard the Respondent's Opposing Affidavit contains the
following averment:
"26.9 The amount of R155 858.72 is the rate that was ultimately agreed upon.
It is self-evident that it was calculated per square metre and that the Applicant
was working on 898 metre2 as being the area being leased and charging
accordingly'.
[30] The email correspo ndence upon which Respondent relies for this assertion
does not support the averment as made in the Respondent's Opposing Affidavit as
quoted supra. The email serves to provide rationalisation for an amount of rental to
be agreed upon, based on a compariso n to market related rentals per square metre
in the specific area where the Midrand Campus is situated. In the email it is stated
that:
"COPA's rental includes operational expenses for which COPA is charged pro
rata according to the square metreage occu pied; COPA 42%, lnscape 58% -
an average over 3 months described below ... ".
[31] From a perusal of the string of email correspondence annexed by Respondent
to the Opposing Affidavit it appears that the emails refer to a total area of 1796
square metres o ccupied by both Applicant and Respondent and which consist not
only of office space, but also of certain shared facilities;
[32] The specific email relied upon by Respondent to assert that it was
misrepresented to Respondent prior to the conclusion of the amended lease for the
Midrand Campus that the floor size leased to Respondent amounts to 898 square
metres, does not support that assertion; The email serves to illustrate that the parties
negotiated a rental rate based on the occupation of certain floors, the sharing of
common facilities, and a pro rata contribution towards "operational costs". In my view,
close scrutiny of this specific email does not support the Respondent's contentions
as set out in the paragraphs quoted supra, and can never be held to constitute clear
evidence of fraud.
[33] In any event, where the Respondent relies on fraudulent misrepresentation
the onus is on the Respondent to prove such fraudulent misrepresentation with clear
undisputed facts2 and the court will not infer fraud wit hout any clear facts, especially
in motion proceedings. In my view, the averments made by Respondent in the
Opposing Affidavit and a scrutiny of the email correspondence upon which
Respondent relies in this regard do not constitute clear evidence of fraud.
[34] All three lease agreements contain a provision for rental to be paid in a
quantified amount without any reference to floor size or rates per square metres.
Respondent's attempt to introduce eviden ce that the rental as agreed in the Midrand
lease was incorrectly calculated on a misrepresentation of the floor size of the
lease was incorrectly calculated on a misrepresentation of the floor size of the
Midrand Campus, cannot be upheld for the following reasons:
2 See: Odendaal v Ferraris 2009(4) SA 313 (SCA)
[34.1] The agreement contains a clause which reads:
"12.1.1 This lease constitutes the entire contract between them and that no
provisions, terms, conditions, stipulations, warranties or representations of
whatsoever nature, whether express or implied have been made by any of the
parties or on their behalf except as recorded herein".
[34.2] Under the heading of "rental" the agreement (prior to amendment)
contained the following clause:
"7.1 The basic rental payable by the lessee to the lessor during the period
of lease shall be
R52384.15 per month from 1 October 2021 to 31 December 2021
R104 768.31 per month from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022
R174799.60 per month from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2023
R188783. 57 per month from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024".
[35] After the Midrand lease agreement was amended, it contained the following
clause:
"3.3 It is recorded that:
3.3.1 Clause 7.1 of the original lease agreement be amended and
substituted with clause 3.3.2 of this agreement.
3.3.2 The basic rental payment by the lessee to the lessor during the period
of lease shall be
R155000.00 per month from 1 May 2023 to 31 December 2023
R167 400.00 per month from 1 January 2024 to 31 December 2024
3.3.3 All other lease terms remain effective as contained in the original lease
agreement”.
[36] It is clear that the agreements refer to a fixed amount of rental, and from the
terms of the agreements it cannot be inferred that the rental amounts are quant ified
by reference to a rate per square metre. Absent a finding that the Respondent
entered into the Midrand lease agreement induced by fraud on the floor size of the
premises and absent a claim for rectification of the terms of the agreement, the
incorrect floor measurement defence therefore cannot stand.
CONCLUSION:
[37] The Applicant provided prima facie evidence of the total outstanding amount
due and owing to it by Respondent in terms of the three lease agreements, and the
Respondents failed to provide any sustainable defence to that claim. In the premises,
the Applicant is entitled to the relief as claim in the Notice of Motion as a result of
which the following order is made:
ORDER
1. Respondent is ordered to pay to Applicant the amount of
R3,185,232.02 (three million one hundred and eighty five thousand two
hundred and thirty two rands and two cents) with interest on the aforesaid
amount at the prescribed mora tore interest rate, calculated from date of
service of the application to date of payment'
2. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
P A van Niekerk
Acting Judge
Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa