THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO.: 41994/21
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
In the matter between:
CORPFIN SA (PTY) LTD
(Registration No. 2017/045540/07)
and
INFINI INNOVATION (PTY) LTD
(Registration No. 2017/358047/07)
ELSAJ
JUDGMENT
Applicant
Respondent
(1] The applicant ("Corpfin") issued an application on 23 August 2021 against
the respondent ("lnfini"), claiming payment from lnfini in the amount of
R6 ,521 ,748.58. Corpfin claims payment from lnfini based on an alleged
suretysh ip. Based on the terms of the suretyship, the respondent was a
surety for Everlink (Pty) Ltd ("Everlink").
[2] As a result of the fact that no notice of intention to oppose was filed, default
judgment was granted against lnfini. lnfini thereafter successfully launched
a rescission of judgment application. The rescission order was granted on
- 2 -
20 July 2023 .
[3] The main issue in dispute between the parties is the authenticity of the
signature of the representative of lnfin i on the deed of suretyship .
[4] The following , inter alia, appears from the founding affidavit:
[4.1] On 4 December 2020 Corpfin concluded a loan agreement with Everlink
(Pty) Ltd ("Everlink");
[4.2] In terms of the loan agreement concluded with Everlink , Corpfin agreed to
advance the sum of R5 million to Everlink, together with an administration
fee of R343, 126.00;
[4.3] The amount so advanced to Everlink (together with interest) had to be
repaid to Corpfin within nine months i.e. on 2 October 2020;
[4.4] Corpfin did not rely on any suretyship from lnfini when the loan agreement
was concluded ;
[4.5) On 28 June 2021 Corpfin and Everlink concluded an addendum to the loan
agreement in terms of which addendum an additiona l amount of
R500 ,000 .00 was advanced to Everlink ;
[4.6) Simultaneously with the conclusion of the addendum , on 28 June 2021,
lnfini signed a deed of suretyship in favour of Corpfin for any and all amounts
which Everlink may from time to time owe to Corpfin ;
[4.7] In tem,s of the addendum the "indebted amounf' (defined to mean
RS,604,026.76) became payable on 30 June 2021, two days after the
signing of the addendum;
[4.8] The suretyship was signed simultaneously with the addendum, on :28 June
2021;
[4.9] As a result of the fact that no payment was made to Corpfin, its attorneys
addressed a letter of demand to both Everlink and lnfini on 17 August 2021.
[5] Ms Mbuyane who, according to Corpfin signed the suretyship, deposed to
the answering affidavit. She confirmed that she is the only director of lnfini.
In the answering affidavit Ms Mbuyane denied any involvement in the
business of Everlink or its representatives. Ms Mbuyane expressly disputed
the authenticity of the suretyship on the basis that her signature was forged.
[6] In addition to disputing the authenticity of the signature on the Deed of
Suretyship, the following was, inter alia, stated in the answering affidavit:
[6.1] Corpfin addressed a letter of demand to Everlink on 10 May 2021. The
following specific statements were made in the aforesaid letter of dHmand:
2.4 Ever/ink shall repay the entire Outstanding Amount within nine
(9) months from the date on which the first part of the Loan
Amount was advanced (2 October 2020) and will repay the
accrued interest calculated at the Interest Rate, monthly, on or
before the last day of every month.
....
4. Ever/ink partially performed in terms of the Agreement by malt: ■
payment to Corpfin towards interest to the amouri~ ~ ■
II ■
- 4 -
R401 627. 12 (Four Hundred and One Thousand Six Hundred
and Twenty Seven Rand and Twelve Cents).
5. Consequently, and is evident from the interest schedule attached
and described in the immediate preceding paragraph an a,mount
of RS 789 859.52 (Five Million Seven Hundred and Eighty
Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Nine Rand and Fifty
Two Cents) still remains due and payable and outstanofing by
the Borrower as at 31 May 2021, notwithstanding any future
accrued interest calculated at the Interest Rate plus legal costs
(including the costs of this letter)."
[6.2] The aforesaid letter proceeded to state that, unless the outstandin!g amount
of R5 789 859.52 was paid within 7 days, Corpfin would proceed with legal
action .
[6.3] In terms of the Addendum to the Loan Agreement, concluded onI 28 June
2021, an additional amount of R500 000.00 was advanced to Eve rlink. The
additional amount had to be repaid on or before 10 July 2021;
[6.4] Ms Mbuyane made the following specific allegations in the ainswering
affidavit:
"21. I was unaware of the existence of all and any of the agreE~ments
and the signature appearing thereon purporting to be mim~ is not
mine or anyone duly representing the respondent .
22. I further confirm that the signature in the aforesaid agreE~ments
has been forged and is not my signature.
23. I therefore submit that the resolution, addendum, suretyship and
cession are fraudulent to the extent that they purport to be
approved by the applicant and/or signed by me acting duly
authorised by the respondent . ...
24. The fraudulent conduct has been reported to the South African
Police Service for investigation and appropriate action under the
case number CAS320/8/2022 and a formal investigo1tion is
currently underway.
32. I have never met with any official or representatives of the
applicant nor cfid I provide them with any of my documents or
those of the respondents , either personally or electronically."
[7] Corpfin annexed a spe1cial resolution authorising MS Mbuyane to sign the
suretyship to its founding affidavit. On this document specific provision was
made for an initial of th◄e person signing the document (MS Mbuyane) . The
initial inserted on the alforesaid document is "Rf'.
[8] The suretyship allegedly signed by MS Mbuyane was also annexed to the
founding affidavit. The same initial "Rf' appears at the bottom of each page
of the suretyship.
[9] There is a marked difference between the signature of MS Mbuyane in the
answering affidavit andl her alleged signature on the special resolution and
the alleged suretyship. The initial appended at the bottom of each page of
the answering affidavit is "R.M. ".
[1 0] Although I expressly do not make any findings on the authenticity of any
initial or signature, at least at face value there is no resemblance
whatsoever between the signature on the special resolution, the Deed of
Suretyship and the signature that appears in the answering affidavit.
[11] The defence put up in ilhe answering affidavit is simply that the suretyship
was never signed by MS Mbuyane and that lnfini is consequently not bound
by it.
[12) In the replying affidavit Ms Mbuyane was heavily criticized. It was stated,
- 6 -
inter alia , that the answering affidavit was "vague, sketchy, and
unsupported ".
(13] The main criticism in the replying affidavit is that the version set out in
answering affidavit was never conveyed to Corpfin prior to the launching of
the application for pa1yment. It was based on these criticisms that I was
invited to reject the veirsion of the respondent in the answering affidavit.
(14] In National Scrap Meital (Cape Town) (Pty) Ltd and Another v Murray &
Roberts Ltd and Others 2012 (5) SA 300 (SCA) at para 21 to 22 the
following was said re~iarding an attempt to make factual findings in motion
proceedings and in particular that there is a stringent test that has to be
applied before comple~tely rejecting a version in an answering affidavit:
21. These factors - particularly collectively - do cast a measure of
doubt on the appellants ' version, which is certainly improbable in a
number of respects. However, as the high court was called on to
decide the matter without the benefit of oral evidence, it had to
accept the facts alleged by the appellants (as respondents below),
unless they were 'so far-fetched or clearly untenable that the court
is justified in rejecting them merely on the papers '. An attempt to
evaluate the competing versions of either side is thus both
inadvisable and unnecessary as the issue is not which version is
the more probable but whether that of the appellants is so far
fetched and improbab le that it can be rejected without evidence.
22. As was recently remarked in this court, the test in that regard is 'a
stringent one not easily satisfied .' In considering whether it has
been satisfiecf in this case, it is necessary to bear in mind that, all
too often, after evidence has been led and tested by cross
examination , things turn out differently from the way they might
have appeamd at first blush . As Megarry J observed in a well
known dictum in John v Rees and Others; Martin and Another v
known dictum in John v Rees and Others; Martin and Another v
Davis and Others ; Rees and Another v John [1970} 1 Ch 345 ([1969}
2 ALL ER 274 (Ch)) at 402 (Ch) and 309 F (ALL ER): 'as everybody
who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law
is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow,
.,,. 7 -
were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were
completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully
explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by
discussion , suffered a change ."'
(15] In my view there is no basis to reject the version set out in the answering
affidavit in motion proceedings .
[16] In terms of Rule 6(5)(g) a court has a discretion, where an application cannot
properly be decided on affidavit. to dismiss the application or to make such
order as it deems fit with a view to ensuring a just and expeditious decision.
In my view it will ensure a just and expeditious decision if the disputes
between the parties are referred to trial.
[17] In the premises, I grant the following order:
1. The matter is referred to trial;
2. The applicant's notice of motion stands as a simple summons;
3. The applicant is directed to deliver a declaration within 15 (fifteen) days;
4. The Rules as set out in the Uniform Rules of Court for the filing of further
pleadings will thereafter apply; and
5. The costs of the application will be costs in the action.
. ~ TIN
I
APJ ELS
E OF THE HIGH COURT
- 8 -
DELIVERED : This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
Counsel for the applicants:
Instructed by:
Counsel for the respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of hearing:
Date of judgment:
M Louw
Van Rooyen and Associates
R Andrews
Dhooge Law Inc.
4 August 2025
3 February 2026