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
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2024-072963
(1) REPORTABLE:
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED:
DATE 21/11/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES
SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD Applicant/Plaintiff
and
VISION FLEET SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Respondent/Defendant
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
THIS JUDGMENT IS HANDED DOWN REMOTELY AND WILL BE
CIRCULATED TO THE PARTIES ELECTRONICALLY.
________________________________________________________________
WELGEMOED, AJ
[1] This is an application for summary judgment brought under Rule 32 that
was heard on 24 November 2025, on the opposed motion roll, where I
reserved judgment after argument by both parties..
[2] The Plaintiff seeks an order confirming cancellation of the agreement
concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, return of the Units to
which the Agreement applies, and costs.
[3] The salient background of the matter is not seriously disputed. In
summary the parties entered into a master instalment sale agreement in
terms of which the Plaintiff sells to the Defendant two units as describe in
the schedule(s). The two units are describe as follows:
a) A new Caterpillar Medium Excavator 323 bearing serial number/VIN
Y[...] (The agreed purchase price is an amount of R2 725 000,00. The
amount financed is an amount of R2 588 750,00 together with interest
at a variable interest rate of prime plus 4.5027% per annum);
b) A new Caterpillar Backhoe Loader 426 bearing serial number/VIN
E[...] (The agreed purchase price is an amount of R1 481 000,00
together with interest at a variable interest rate of prime plus 3.7503%
per annum).
[4] The Defendant agrees that its payment and performance obligations
under the master instalment sale agreement are absolute and
unconditional, and are not subject to cancellation, reduction or set -off for
any reason. The master instalment sale agreement constitutes the sole
record of the agreement between the parties in regard to the subject
matter thereof. No party shall be bound by any express or implied term,
representation, warranty, promise or the like, not recorded in the master
instalment sale agreement. If at any time, any provision of the master
instalment sale agreement is or becomes illegal, invalid, unenforceable or
inoperable in any respect, neither the legality, validity, enforceability or
operation of the remaining provisions, nor the legal validity, enforceability
or operation of the remaining provisions, will in any way be affected or
impaired.
[5] The Defendant defaulted in terms of its repayment obligations under the
master instalment sale agreement read with the schedules and the
indicative payment schedules, in that the Defendant failed to make
payment to the Plaintiff of the monthly instalments due and payable on
due date . A written demand was delivered to the Defendant demanding
payment of the amounts due and owing on 19 April 2024.
[6] The Defendant failed to make payment to the Plaintiff of the amount
claimed in terms of the Plaintiff's written demand, within the period
afforded. In the premises the Plaintiff bec ame entitled to cancel the
agreement between the parties in terms of the master instalment sale
agreement read with the schedules and to take control and possession of
the aforesaid Units. The written notice of cancellation was delivered to the
Defendant on 28 May 2024.
[8] In the premise the Plaintiff contends that the the Defendant is in unlawful
possession of the aforesaid Units, and the Plaintiff, as the legal owner of
the Units, has become entitled to take control and possession of the
aforesaid Units, and to claim immediate delivery of the Units by and from
the Defendant.
[9] In opposition, the Defendant raises the following main defences, which I
will deal with hereunder:
a) The provisions of the National Credit Act, 34 of 2005 ('the Act') apply
to the Agreement and the Plaintiff failed to comply with the relevant
provisions of the Act . This defence was not persisted with at
argument;
b) Determination of prayers 2 and 3 for delivery of the Units is dependent
upon a determination by the Court that the Defendant breached the
Agreement. The Defendant denies its indebtedness to the Plaintiff and
therefore a dispute of fact is said to exist. The Defendant contends
that the alleged dispute of fact affects the Plaintiff's right to cancel the
Agreement. The Defendant failed to provide any evidence of payment
of the amount owing and accordingly this defence holds no water . On
the evidence before this Court, the Defendant breached the
agreement, thereby triggering the Plaintiff’s right to cancellation.
c) The Defendant relies on an alleged novation of the agreement,
arguing that the novated agreement could not have been cancelled by
the Plaintiff. There are no specific reference made to any terms of the
purported novation or even an attempt made to show compliance with
such a novated agreement. In any event , clause 15 of the master
instalment sale agreement negates any reliance on a purported oral
novation of the agreement. The Agreement constitutes the sole record
of the agreement between the parties, and no party shall be bound by
any express or implied term, representation, warranty, promise or the
like that is not recorded in the Agreement.
d) That the Defendant was not given an opportunity to read the
agreement and signed same based on what the Plaintiff represented
to it. The Defendant’s conduct over a period of time again shows there
is simply no merit in this contention. It is common cause that the
parties entered into the agreement and that, at all relevant times
during the course of conclusion of the agreement, the Defendant was
duly represented by Marius Victor Knoetze, the deponent to the
affidavit resisting summary judgment. By appending his signature to
each page of the master instalment sale agreement and to each page
of the two schedules, Mr Knoetze as Defendant's duly appointed
agent, bound the Defendant to the terms and conditions of the
agreement. This is the case whether Mr Knoetze read and understood
the terms and conditions thereof or not. This principle is known as
caveat subscriptor . Over a period of approximately five months, the
Defendant concluded two schedules and a master instalment sale
agreement with the Plaintiff. The terms and conditions of the
schedules being identical. The Defendant signed the first of the two
schedules on 29 September 2022 and, in terms thereof, took delivery
of the Unit on 13 October 2022. The objective facts show that the
Defendant willingly and freely signed not only the schedules, but the
master instalment sale agreement. The master instalment sale
agreement specifically incorporates the provisions of the schedules.
[10] Meritless denials and allegations are merely intended to delay the matters
and is ultimately infringing on the Plaintiff’s right to summary judgment as
stated by the Supreme Court of Appeal in NPGS Protection & Security
Services CC. v Firstrand Bank Ltd1;
“[14] Indeed, the court would be remiss in its duties of such defences,
clearly devoid of any bona fides, stand in the way of plaintiffs who are
entitled to relief. The ever -increasing perception that bald averments and
sketchy propositions are sufficient to stave off summary judgment is
misplaced and not supported by the trite principles developed over many
decades by our courts . See for example, the well -known judgment of this
court in Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Ltd. 1976 (1) SA 418 (A) where
the proper approach to applications for summary judgment is stated.”
[11] It is settled law that the Defendant must not be vague, sketchy and laconic
in his opposing affidavit. Such attributes entitle the court to form the
impression that the defendant cannot or will not play open cards. 2 Of
crucial importance in summary judgment proceedings is the
comprehensive disclosure of the material facts upon which the defence is
1 2020 (1) SA 494 SCA.
2 Appliance Hire (Natal) (Pty) Ltd v Natal Fruit Juices (Pty) Ltd 1974 (2) SA 287 (D) 290H–291B;
Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T) 229A; Diesel Power Plant Hire CC v
Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T) 229A; Diesel Power Plant Hire CC v
Master Diggers (Pty) Ltd 1992 (2) SA 295 (W) 298C –F; Creative Car Sound and Another v
Automobile Radio Dealers Association 1989(Pty) Ltd 2007 (4) SA 546 (D&C) 556I–557A.
based. This is particularly so as the evaluation of the defendant’s
opposing affidavit frequently entails not a consideration of what the
defendant has said, but of what he did not say.3
[12] The plea read with the affidavit resisting summary judgment is nothing
more than a bare denial and does not satisfy the requirements of Rule
32(3). The nature and grounds of the defence and the material facts relied
upon is not contained in the Plea. The opposition to the application is ill
conceived and the Defendant has not shown one factual ground upon
which this Honourable Court can come to the Defendant’s assistance.
Order
[13] Consequently, I make the attached draft order an order of court which I
mark “X”.
WELGEMOED CJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 24.11.2025
Date of Judgment: 26.11.2025
Counsel for Plaintiff: Z Marx du Plessis
Counsel for Defendant: XT van Niekerk
3 Kassim Brothers (Pvt) Ltd v Kassim 1964 (1) SA 651 (SR) 653B.