REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024-120971
DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 2026
In the matter between:
GAME BREEDING AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED First Plaintiff
DANIEL CHRISTOFFEL LAURENS PONT Second Plaintiff
JOHANNES JACOBUS PICKARD Third Plaintiff
and
OBARO FINANCIAL SERVICES (PTY) LIMITED First Defendant
LAND & AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Defendant
Coram: Adams J
Heard on: 20 February 2026 – ‘virtually’ as a videoconference on
Microsoft Teams
Delivered on: 23 February 2026 – This judgment was handed down
electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by
email, by being uploaded to CaseLines and by release to
SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be
10:30 on 23 February 2026.
2
Summary: Civil procedure – separation of issues in terms of rule 33(4) – aimed
at facilitating the convenient and expeditious disposal of litigation – not to be
granted if issues are found to be inextricably linked – separated issues must be
discrete in order for separation application to succeed – convenience will be
constituted by the possibility of finalising an issue which may be dispositive of a
portion of the matter – separation application granted –
Uniform Rules of Court – rule 33(4).
3
ORDER
(1) The second defendant’s application in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 33(4)
for a separation of the issues succeeds and it be and is hereby granted, with
costs.
(2) In terms of Uniform Rule of Court 33(4), the adjudication of the following
issue (‘the separated issue’) be and is hereby separated from any and/or all
other disputes between the parties:
‘(a) Whether, at the relevant time, arising from a suite of agreements concluded
between the first defendant and the second defendant during 2013 and 2014,
there was in existence and extant a valid and enforceable Cession in terms
of which the first defendant had ceded and delegated to the second
defendant any and/or all its (first defendant’s) right, title and interest in and
to the first plaintiff’s indebtedness to the first defendant.
(b) And whether the plaintiffs, who were not parties to the agreements concluded
between first and the second defendants, can raise as a defence against the
claims instituted by the second defendant against the plaintiffs, based upon
the agreements, that the second defendant has not acquired the underlying
rights of action against the plaintiffs and the related security, if there is no
dispute – and in fact consensus between the defendants, who were the only
contracting parties to the agreements, that all rights of action to recover the
debts, and related security, were successfully and effectively transferred
from the first defendant to the second defendant and vest in the second
defendant.’
(3) It be and is hereby directed that the separated issue shall separately
proceed to trial first and before any and/or all of the remaining disputes
between the parties.
(4) The adjudication of the remaining disputes between the parties and the
hearing relating thereto are postponed sine die.
(5) The first, second and third plaintiffs, jointly and severally, the one paying the
other to be absolved, shall pay the second defendant’s costs of the
4
separation application, which costs shall include the costs consequent upon
the employment of two Counsel, one being Senior Counsel, on scale ‘C’ of
the tariff applicable in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court.
JUDGMENT
Adams J:
[1]. I shall refer to the parties as referred to in the main defended action, in
which the first, second and third plaintiffs seek declaratory relief against the first
and the second defendants. The relief is sought in relation to a Cession (‘the
Cession’) in terms of which the first defendant (‘Obaro’) ceded to the second
defendant (‘the Land Bank’) its right, title and interest in and to Term Loan
Agreements concluded during 2018 and 2019 between the first plaintiff (‘Game
Breeding Africa’) and Obaro . I n terms of and pursuant to the Term Loan
Agreements, Obaro had lent and advanced to Game Breeding Africa the total
sum of R3 233 944.06.
[2]. The Land Bank applies in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 33(4) for an order
for the separation from any and/or all other disputes between the parties of a
clearly defined issue relating to its locus standi in iudicio to claim from the
plaintiffs, on the basis of the Cession, the outstanding balance payable by the
plaintiffs in terms of the Term Loan Agreements and the sureties signed by the
second and the third plaintiffs in favour of Obaro. The Land Bank also seeks an
order for the postponement of the hearing in regard to the remaining issues,
including the prayers as prayed for in the particulars o f claim, until judgment is
granted on the separated issue.
[3]. In its notice of motion, the Land Bank has formulated the ‘separated issue’
as follows: -
5
‘Whether the plaintiffs, who were not parties to the agreements concluded between first
and the second defendants, can raise as a defence against the claims instituted by the
second defendant against the plaintiffs, based upon the agreements, that the seco nd
defendant has not acquired the underlying rights of action against the plaintiffs and the
related security, if there is no dispute – and in fact consensus between the defendants,
who were the only contracting parties to the agreements, that all rights o f action to
recover the debts, and related security, were successfully and effectively transferred
from the first defendant to the second defendant and vest in the second defendant.’
[4]. In my view, the separated issue corresponds largely with the disputed
allegations made by the plaintiffs in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and
29 of the plaintiff’s particulars of claim. In essence, what the Land Bank wishes
to have adjudicated separately is the dispute relating to the Cession of Obaro’s
right, title and interest in and to the Term Loan Agreements. In that regard, the
case on behalf of the plaintiffs is a denial that there was a valid cession of the
right, title and interest in a nd to the debts pursuant to the credit agreements
concluded between Game Breeding Africa and Obaro. The plaintiffs allege, nay
submit that the suit of agreements relied upon by the first and the second
defendants do not contain a cession of rights.
[5]. The plaintiffs contend that the debts in favour of Obaro did not exist on
date of the alleged cession during December 2013 or during April 2014, when the
alleged cession and delegation took place . T he indebtedness arose only
afterwards, so the contention continues, and could not have been ceded at the
time of the alleged cession. The plaintiffs accordingly deny that any transfer of
rights in and to the debts allegedly owing by the plaintiffs to Obaro was in fact
ceded to the Land Bank.
ceded to the Land Bank.
[6]. The plaintiffs, however, accept that a cession to the Land Bank was
effected of the securities in the form of covering mortgage bonds in favour of
Obaro over the immovable property of Game Breeding Africa. The plaintiffs
contend that, without a cession of the underlying debt having been effected, the
6
mortgage bonds are of no force and effect, grants no security without an ancillary
indebtedness to the cessionary (the Land Bank) and stands to be set aside.
[7]. From the foregoing it is clear that the validity of the Cession is an issue
central to the disputes between the parties. Importantly, it is an issue which is
separate and distinct from all of the other disputes between the parties.
[8]. The application is opposed by the plaintiffs, who allege that the application
for the separation of issues is ‘ill-conceived’. A separation of the issues will not,
so the contention goes, expedite the finalisation of the matter, but will cause an
unnecessary delay, as well as wasted costs, since the point lo be determined as
to whether the Land Bank is a creditor of the plaintiffs, will require the leading of
oral evidence. Save for the rather bald aforegoing contention, the plaintiffs offer
very little resistance to the separation application.
[9]. The plaintiffs also allege in their answering affidavit in the interlocutory
application that t he Land Bank is required to establish its locus standi, which it
must prove by providing the Court with admissible primary facts. This argument
does not, in my view, assist in deciding the separation issue. It goes to the merits
of the separated issue. If anything, it lends further support for the separation
application in that it demonstrates the complexity, from a legal point of view of the
separated issue, making it convenient to separate the issue.
[10]. The question which needs to be decided in this application is simply
whether it is convenient to separate the issues as applied for by the Land Bank.
In deciding that question, cognizance should be taken of the issues on the
pleadings and whether those issues are inextricably linked. Put another way, the
enquiry relates to whether the issues which the defendant requires to be
separated out are discrete and separate from all other issues.
[11]. Rule 33(4) reads as follows:
[11]. Rule 33(4) reads as follows:
'If, in any pending action, it appears to the court mero motu that there is a question of
law or fact which may co nveniently be decided either before any evidence is led or
7
separately from any other question, the court may make an order directing the disposal
of such question in such manner as it may deem fit and may order that all further
proceedings be stayed until such question has been disposed of, and the court shall on
the application of any party make such order unless it appears that the questions cannot
conveniently be decided separately.'
[12]. The process of dealing with a matter under rule 33(4) was clarified in Denel
(Edms) Bpk v Vorster 2004 (4) SA 481 (SCA) as follows:
'Rule 33(4) of the Uniform Rules – which entitles a Court to try issues separately in
appropriate circumstances – is aimed at facilitating the convenient and expeditious
disposal of litigation. It should not be assumed that that result is always achiev ed by
separating the issues. In many cases, once properly considered, the issues will be found
to be inextricably linked, even though, at first sight, they might appear to be discrete. And
even where the issues are discrete, the expeditious disposal of the litigation is often best
served by ventilating all the issues at one hearing, particularly where there is more than
one issue that might be readily dispositive of the matter. It i s only after careful thought
has been given to the anticipated course of the litigation as a whole that it will be possible
properly to determine whether it is convenient to try an issue separately. But, where the
trial Court is satisfied that it is proper to make such an order – and, in all cases, it must
be so satisfied before it does so – it is the duty of that Court to ensure that the issues to
be tried are clearly circumscribed in its order so as to avoid confusion.'
[13]. In order to decide whether it is convenient to separate the issues in casu
it is necessary to assess what the issues are between the parties. I have already
alluded to those issues supra. It is unnecessary to rehash those issues.
[14]. It bears emphasising though that pursuant to Term Loan Agreements
[14]. It bears emphasising though that pursuant to Term Loan Agreements
concluded between Game Breeding Africa and Obaro during 2018 and 2019,
Obaro lent and advanced to Game Breeding Africa the total sum of
R3 233 944.06. The second and the third plaintiffs have bound themselves as
sureties and co-principal debtors unto and in favour of Obaro in respect of Game
Breeding Africa’s indebtedness to it. The said indebtedness was also secured by
continuous covering mortgage bond s in favour of Obaro over the immovable
property of Game Breeding Africa, which securities were ceded to the Land Bank.
8
[15]. The Land Bank alleges that Obaro has ceded and delegated to it (the Land
Bank) its right, title and interest to Game Breeding Africa’s indebtedness to
Obaro. The plaintiffs contend that the alleged Cession, insofar as the Land Bank
would be able to prove same, is invalid and unenforceable. The plaintiffs therefore
pray for an order making a declaration to that effect. Additionally, an order is
sought to the ef fect that the indebtedness to Obaro, which, according to the
plaintiffs had not been transferred to the Land Bank, has become transferred.
[16]. Game Breeding Africa has not, from 8 September 2021 to date, made any
payments to Obaro or to the Land Bank in respect of any of the debts referred to
supra. According to the Land Bank, the balance outstanding and payable by
Game Breeding Africa, presently amounts to approximately R7 million.
[17]. From the pleadings, it is clear that the issues in dispute between the
parties are: - (a) Importantly and crucially, the existence , the validity and the
enforceability of the Cession; (b) Whether Game Breeding Africa’s indebtedness
to either the Land Bank or Obaro has become prescribed; and (c) The amount of
the indebtedness.
[18]. During the hearing of the separation application before me on 20 February
2026, Mr Janse Van Rensburg, who appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, urged
me to find that second defendant’s case on the separated issue has very little
prospect of success. The suit of agreements relied upon by the Land Bank to
prove its locus standi in iudicio, so the argument went, is wholly insufficient to
establish its locus standi. In that regard, I was referred to a number of cases in
support of this contention by the plaint iffs, such as Waldeck NO and Others v
Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa1 and Trakman NO v The
Master of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg2,
1 Waldeck NO and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (4013/18) [2019]
ZAMPMHC 4 (14 October 2019).
2 Trakman NO v The Master of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg 2021 JDR 1983 (GJ).
9
[19]. The plaintiffs contend that the agreement relied upon by the Land Bank
does not contain a cession of rights and therefore does not support the Land
Bank’s contention that it is vested with the right of action to institute proceedings
against the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, so the contention continues, a
separation of the issues as prayed for by the Land Bank will only result in wasted
costs and an unnecessary delay of the main action. This, in turn, so the argument
is concluded, means that it is not convenient to separate the issues.
[20]. For their part, Mr Van der Merwe SC, who appeared for the second
defendant with Ms Van der Merwe, with reference to cases such as Hillock and
Another v Hilsage Investments (Pty) Ltd 3, First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn
NO and Others4, The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v
Du Plessis NO5 and Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd & Another v Arqomanzi (Pty)
Ltd and Others6, endeavoured to persuade me to the contrary.
[21]. These arguments, whilst they do not take the issue of the separation
application any further, certainly demonstrate the complexity – from a legal point
of view – of the separated issue. Moreover, if nothing else, the opposing
contentions support a conclusi on that the separated issue can and should be
decided separately from other disputes between the parties. It clearly would be
convenient to do so. The convenience lies therein that, if the plaintiffs are found
to be correct on this aspect of the matter, th at would certainly be the end of the
second defendant’s case in this application and in any intended proceedings to
claim the outstanding balance of the loan agreements from the plaintiff. In that
scenario, a part of the matter would have been disposed off expeditiously and
without the need to canvass the other issues in dispute between the parties.
3 Hillock and Another v Hilsage Investments (Pty) Ltd 1975 (1) SA 508 (A).
3 Hillock and Another v Hilsage Investments (Pty) Ltd 1975 (1) SA 508 (A).
4 First National Bank of SA Ltd v Lynn NO and Others 1996 (2) SA 339 (A).
5 The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Du Plessis NO 2020 JDR 1670 (FB).
6 Vantage Goldfields SA (Pty) Ltd & Another v Arqomanzi (Pty) Ltd and Others (733/2022) [2023] ZASCA
106; [2023] 3 All SA 667 (SCA) (27 June 2023)
10
[22]. I therefore conclude that it would be convenient to separate the issues as
prayed for by the second respondent. The second defendant’s application for a
separation of the issues should therefore be granted.
Costs
[23]. The general rule in matters of costs is that the successful party should be
given his costs, and this rule should not be departed from except where there are
good grounds for doing so, such as misconduct on the part of the successful party
or other exceptional circumstances. See: Myers v Abramson, 1951(3) SA 438 (C)
at 455.
[24]. I can think of no reason why I should deviate from this general rule. What
is more, is that, in my view, the plaintiffs did not demonstrate any grounds, let
alone any valid grounds, for opposing the separation application.
[25]. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs should pay the second
respondent’s costs of the application.
Order
Accordingly, I make the following order: -
(1) The second defendant’s application in terms of Uniform Rule of Court 33(4)
for a separation of the issues succeeds and it be and is hereby granted, with
costs.
(2) In terms of Uniform Rule of Court 33(4), the adjudication of the following
issue (‘the separated issue’) be and is hereby separated from any and/or all
other disputes between the parties:
‘(a) Whether, at the relevant time, arising from a suite of agreements concluded
between the first defendant and the second defendant during 2013 and 2014,
there was in existence and extant a valid and enforceable Cession in terms
of which the first defendant had ceded and delegated to the second
defendant any and/or all its (first defendant’s) right, title and interest in and
to the first plaintiffs’ indebtedness to the first defendant.
12
HEARD ON: 20 February 2026 – ‘Virtually’
JUDGMENT DATE: 23 February 2026 – handed down
electronically.
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS / RESPONDENTS: F G Janse Van Rensburg
INSTRUCTED BY: Eugene Geyser Attorneys,
Viljoenskroon
FOR THE SECOND DEFENDANT /
APPLICANT:
M P Van der Merwe SC, together with
(Ms) A Van der Merwe
INSTRUCTED BY: Leahy Attorneys Incorporated,
Sandton