REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
Case Number: 137062/2023
( l ) REPORT ABLE: NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO OTHER JUDG ES: NO
(3) REVISED.
In the appeal between:
13 February 2026
DATE
INDLELA CONSULTANTS (PTY) LTD
and
ACUMEN GROUP (PTY) LTD
Plaintiff
Defendant
2
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff issued summons against the defendant for the payment of an
amount of R 1 030 777, 11 with interest and costs. The defendant defended the
claim and filed a plea. Upon receipt of the plea the plaintiff brought the present
application for summary judgment in terms of the provisions of rule 32 of the
Uniform rules of court.
Pleadings
Particulars of claim
[2] The plaintiff’s claim is based on an oral agreement entered into between the
parties on or about 18 October 2023 in terms of which the plaintiff will supply
water treatment products to the defendant at the defendant’s special instance
and request. The plaintiff was represented by Roberson Phiri and the defendant
by Gideon Petrus Reyneke.
[3] The plaintiff avers that the defendant, in terms of the oral agreement between
the parties, placed 23 orders during the period October 2023 to August 2024.
The plaintiff pleads in respect of each order the date on which the order was
received, the date on which the product was delivered or collected, and the date
and amount of the invoice issued in respect of the 23 Orders. In each instance,
copies of the purchas e order, delivery or collection note, and the invoice are
attached to the particulars of claim.
[4] The plaintiff alleged that as at 30 September 2024 , an amount of R 1 030 777,
11 was due and owing in respect of the orders and attached a statement of
account. The statement of account reflects payments made by the defendant
during the period October 2023 to September 2024.
3
[5] In a letter dated 15 May 2024, Reyneke, in his capacity as CEO of the defendant,
acknowledged that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of R
510 621, 68. Reyneke explained the financial difficulties faced by the defendant
and stated the following: “We assure you of our earnest intent to settle this
account at the earliest opportunity.”
[6] On the same day, Lucia Modisane, the Operations Manager of the defendant
send an email to the plaintiff stating the following:
“Acumen is committed to addressing this matter promptly and responsibly. We will be
making a payment of R 400, 000.00 before the end of May, which will reduce the
outstanding balance to R 760, 058.36.
Subsequently, we will endeavour to settle the remaining balance of R 510,621.68 no
later than June 15, 2024. This will result in a final outstanding balance of R 249,406,48.”
[7] Notwithstanding written demand for payment on 18 October 2024, the defendant
failed, neglected and/or refused to pay the amount.
Plea
[8] The defendant denied that an oral agreement was entered into as alleged by the
plaintiff.
[9] The defendant pleaded that the details regarding the offers made by the
defendant to the plaintiff and the information or details appearing in the invoices
attached to the particulars of claim are noted; i.e the defendant did not deny the
specified detail in respect of the 23 orders averred by the plaintiff.
[10] The defendant did not deny the letter written by Reyneke, the email send by
Modisane or the fact that a written demand was made by the plaintiff. The
defendant pleaded as follows to the allegations:
“However, the Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has made any verbal demands to the
Defendant and that the Defendant has refused to pay. Thus, the Defendant puts the
Plaintiff to the proof thereof.”
4
Summary judgment application
[11] Phiri, the managing director of the plaintiff and the person that allegedly
represented the plaintiff when the verbal agreement was concluded with the
defendant, allegedly represented by Reyneke, deposed to the affidavit in support
of summary judgment.
[12] Phiri swore positively to and verified the facts, the cause of action, the amounts
set out in the summons, and the particulars of claim. Phiri also dealt with the
defence raised in the defendant’s plea and concluded by stating that the
defendant does not have a valid and bona fide defence to the claim.
[13] Reyneke, in his capacity as the sole director of the defendant, deposed to the
affidavit resisting summary judgment. Reyneke expressed the view that there
existed issues between the parties “that need to be substantially ventilated in the
trial court..” One such issue, according to Reyneke, is the fact that the alleged
verbal agreement between himself and Phiri was never reduced to writing.
[14] Furthermore, and once again, according to Reyneke, “the Plaintiff alleged in its
Particulars of claim both parties had the requisite legal authority to enter into the verbal
agreement. However, there is no proof attached to the Particulars of claim evidencing
such allegation, The evidentiary gap occasioned by the lack of proof of legal authority
will have to be remedied through adducing evidence in the trial court.”
[15] Non-compliance with the provisions of rule 32(2)(b) was also raised, but Mr
Lekota, the attorney representing the defendant, wisely did not persist with this
defence during argument. Lastly, Reyneke stated that the defendant’s bona fide
defence stems from the lack of proof that a verbal agreement exists between the
parties.
Legal position and discussion
[16] The test that is applied in a summary judgment application was succinctly
summarised by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd
summarised by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd
v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA) as follows at par [32]:
5
“The rationale for summary judgment proceedings is impeccable. The procedure is not
intended to deprive a defendant without a triable issue or a sustainable defence of
her/his day in court. After almost a century of successful application in our courts,
summary judgment proceedings can hardly continue to be described as extraordinary.
Our courts, both of first instance and at appellate level, have during that time rightly been
trusted to ensure that a defendant with a triable issue is not shut out. In the M aharaj
case at 425G - 426E, Corbett JA was keen to ensure, first, an examination of whether
there has been sufficient disclosure by a defendant of the nature and grounds of his
defence and the facts upon which it is founded. The second consideration is tha t the
defence so disclosed must be both bona fide and good in law. A court which is satisfied
that this threshold has been crossed is then bound to refuse summary judgment. …”
[Also see: Jiji v Firstrand Banf Ltd t/a Wesbank 2015 (3) SA 586 (SCA)
[17] Applying the aforesaid test to the facts in casu it is first of all necessary to
examine whether the defendant has sufficiently disclosed the nature and grounds
of its defence and the facts upon which the defence is founded.
[18] Although the defendant denies that a verbal agreement was reached between
the parties as alleged, the performance in terms of the alleged agreement is not
denied. The defendant did not deny that the 23 orders were placed, that the
orders were received and that invoices were issued in respect of the orders. The
defendant does not deny that it made payment to the plaintiff in respect of the
orders. Reyneke admitted in writing that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff
in the amount of R 51 0 621, 68 a nd M odisane made a payment proposal in
respect of the amount that is owed to the plaintiff.
[19] In formulating its plea, the defendant lost sight of the fact that each order which
[19] In formulating its plea, the defendant lost sight of the fact that each order which
was placed by it, constitutes an agreement. The defendant made an offer which
the plaintiff accepted and delivered on. The only outstanding issue is the payment
of the goods that were delivered to the defendant upon its special instance and
request.
[20] The defendant has failed dismally to plead a defence in law that justifies its non-
payment for the goods it had received.
[21] The view expressed by Reyneke that the alleged verbal agreement should have
been reduced to writing and that it is a "major aspect" that needs to be traversed
in the trial court is without any legal foundation. It is unfortunate that those who
advised him did not inform him of the legal principles applicable to verbal
agreements. A verbal agreement is just as enforceable as a written agreement
and was actually, in casu given effect too.
[22] Similarly the view expressed in respect of the authority to enter into the verbal
agreement is sadly misplaced. The authority of Phiri and Reyneke to act on
behalf of the plaintiff and defendant is not an issue on the pleadings. The written
admission by Reyneke in his capacity as CEO and, according to the answering
affidavit, the sole director of the defendant, that the defendant owes the plaintiff
money dispels, in any event, any notion of lack of authority.
[23] In the premises, the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment.
Costs
[24] Costs should follow the event, and I am of the view that the issues raised in the
matter justify counsel's fees on scale 8.
Order
Judgment is granted against the defendant in favour of the plaintiff for payment of:
1. The amount of R 1 030 777, 11 ;
2. Interest on the aforesaid amount at the prescribed interest rate a temporae
morae from 18 October 2024 to date of payment;
3. Cost of suit. Counsel's fees on scale 8.
'--JJANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
6
7
DATE OF HEARING : 09 February 2026
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 13 February 2026
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the plaintiff: Mr Molefi
Instructed by: Leseka Molefi Attorneys Inc
Attorney for the defendant: Mr Lekota
Instructed by : Lekota Incorporated Attorneys
8