IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA (MAIN SEAT)
(1) REPORTABLE: YEs&o)
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
In the matter between:
KHULUBUSI LAMI INVESTMENTS (PTY} LTD
TIP TOP SUPPLIERS CC
and
MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
MPUMALANGA PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
CASE NO: 2676/ 2025
FIRST APPLICANT
SECOND APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties ancVor
their representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 4th
March 2026 at 10h00.
JUDGMENT
2
NsibandeAJ
Introduction
[1] This is an application for a Summary Judgment against the Respondent. The
application emanates from services rendered by the Applicants at the request of the
Respondent.
[2] The Applicants alleged that the Respondent, in its plea, has failed to raise a
bona fide defence to its claim. The Respondent alleges that it has raised a bona fide
defence to the Plaintiff's claim.
Background
[3] Sometime in July 2022 the Plaintiffs and the Respondent entered into an
agreement for the delivery of certain goods. The goods were procured by the
Defendant through a system known as a Request for Quotation (hereinafter referred
to as the RFQ), on behalf of three local municipalities: Umjindi Local Municipality,
Emakhazeni Local Municipality, and Steve Tshwete Local Municipality.
[4] The Plaintiffs responded to the RFQ as advertised by the Respondent and
were favoured, and as a result, were duly appointed to provide the services required.
[5] Upon delivery of the goods and services procured, sometime in August 2022,
the Plaintiffs issued invoices to the Respondent as follows:
5.1
5.2
5.3
Umjindi Local Municipality
Emakhazeni Local Municipality
Steve Tshwete Local Municipality
Total
R 155 998.00
R485464.06
R 291 883.81
R 933 345.87
[6] The Plaintiffs demanded payment of the total amount of the issued invoices.
3
[7] The Respondent, in a letter dated 28 April 2023, responded to the demand, in
particular paragraphs 3 and 4 thereof, which read as follows:
"3. We confirm that the Department received three invoices referred to in
paragraph 4.1.1. of your Section 3 Notices, from your client for payment with
regard to the services rendered.
4. According to our records, all three invoices were attended to and therefore,
respective payments (in the amounts referred to paragraph 4.1.1. of your
Notice) were effected to your clients accordingly through the banking details
appearing on the CSD System at the time (payment proof attached hereto)."
[8] Upon receipt of this letter, the Plaintiffs duly issued Summons against the
Respondent and in its particulars of claim, in paragraph 7 thereof states as follows;
"7. Non-payment -
7 .1 The Defendant has failed and or refused to provide the 1st Plaintiff with
any substantive proof that it paid the invoices to the 1st Plaintiff banking
details appearing upon its invoices, despite specific and direct requests
thereof'.
7.2 In the alternative, the Defendant paid the invoices to incorrect banking
details not belonging to the 1st Plaintiff, and consequently failed to pay
the 1st Plaintiff.
7 .2.1. Further to this, the Defendant has failed to provide the First
Plaintiff with any substantive proof that it paid the invoices, albeit
to the incorrect banking details, despite specific and direct
requests thereof.
7.3 Further, in the alternative, the Defendant paid the invoices to banking
details which it had not been authorised to pay the 1st Plaintiff and
consequently failed to pay the 1st Plaintiff.
4
7.4. Further to this, the Defendant has failed to provide the First Plaintiff with
any substantive proof that it paid the Invoices, to any banking account,
which it purports was held by the First Plaintiff, nor any authority that it
purports to have held to do this, despite specific and direct request
therefore."
[9] The Respondent defended the claim and filed a Plea comprising bare denials
of and/ or to the Plaintiff's claim.
[1 OJ What happened thereafter, though not an issue to be decided in this matter,
was that the Applicant amended its Particulars of Claim, and the Defendant pleaded
on the original Particulars of Claim.
[11] As a result of this bare denial in that, at that stage, the Respondent elected not
to make consequential adjustments to its Plea , the Applicants applied for a Default
Judgment, which was refused by this Court on 27 October 2023. Thereafter on 12
December 2023, this Court refused the Applicant's Leave to Appeal that Application
[12] In July 2025, the Applicants launched this Application for Summary Judgment,
which is opposed by the Respondent, and the Applicants objected to the proposed
Amended Plea. In September 2025, the Respondent filed its Amendmended Plea.
[13) There was an argument between the parties as to the status of the filed
Amended Plea, as it had been withdrawn, or that the Amended Plea relates to the
initial particulars of claim and does not relate to the amended Particulars of Claim.
[14) However , these issues are not before this Court for adjudication.
The Summary Judgment Application
[15] As indicated above, the Applicants have launched a Summary Judgment
Application against the Respondent, claiming payments of the three invoices
5
submitted, which in total amount to R 933 345.87 (Nine Hundred and Thirty-Three
Thousand, Three Hundred and Forty-Five Rands and Eighty-Seven Cents).
[16] The Affidavit deposed in support of the Summary Judgment Application states
in paragraph 7 .1. thereof as follows:
"7.1 I submit that the Defendant has simply entered a bald denial to the Plaintiffs
claim, and that nowhere does their Plea neither clearly, nor concisely with
sufficient particularity, outline the material facts upon which the Defendant
relies to refute the Plaintiffs claim, nor does it draw any legal conclusion from
such material facts."
[17] In response, the Respondent states as follows in its Answering Affidavit, in
paragraph 14 thereof:
"14.1 Plaintiffs (Applicants) were invited to submit quotations to the Defendant on
the strength of information derived from Government Central Database System
(CSD).
14.2 The CSD reflected the Plaintiffs company profile as well as the banking details
of the company.
14.3. Upon receipt of the goods supplied by the Plaintiffs, Defendant effected
payment into a bank account as it reflected on the CSD under Plaintiffs
company profile.
14.4. Plaintiffs later claimed that the payment intended for it was paid to another
company, unrelated to the Plaintiff, because of the unauthorised amendment
to the Plaintiffs profile on the CSD.
14.5 No persons, including government officials can access and amend and I or
update any company profile on the CSD System without the Company login
details which are supposed to be only known by the company's authorised
direction.
14.6. Defendant maintains that the amount owed to the Plaintiff and claimed in the
particulars of claim have been fully paid to the Plaintiffs" (My emphasis)
[18] Again, in paragraph 19 of the Respondent's Answering Affidavit, it further
states that:
"19.1 The First Plaintiff's Particulars, including the banking details were obtained
from the National Treasury Central Data Base.
19.2. Plaintiff was invited to supply goods to the Defendant on the strength of
the information provided by the Plaintiffs to the Central Data Base.
19.3. It was a tacit term of the agreement between the parties that payment for
goods supplied will be affected through a bank account as reflected in
the Central Data Base.
19.4. The Defendant made payment to the Plaintiff on the 03rd March 2023
and on the 09th November 2022 respectively, into the Plaintiff bank
account as reflected on the Central Suppliers Database."
Legal Principles
Summary Judgment
[19] Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of this Court deals with the procedure and
application of the Summary Judgment procedure, and it reads as follows:
"Rule 32. Summary Judgment -
7
(1) The Plaintiff may, after the Defendant has delivered a plea,
apply to court for Summary Judgment on each of such claims as is
only
(a) on a liquid document.
(b) for a liquidated amount in money
(c) for delivery of specified movable property
(d) for ejectment."
Applicable Legal Principles
[20] The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in the matter of Majola v Nitro
Securitisation 11 made the following remarks in respect to Summary Judgment.
"The purpose of summary judgment is to 'enable a plaintiff with a clear case to
obtain swift enforcement of a claim against a defendant who has no real defence to
that claim'. It is a procedure that is intended 'to prevent sham defences from
defeating the rights of parties by delay, and at the same time causing great loss to
plaintiffs who were endeavouring to enforce their rights'. If a court hearing an
application for summary judgment is satisfied that a defendant has no bona fide
defence to a plaintiffs claim and grants summary judgment as a consequence, it
should be slow thereafter to grant leave to appeal, lest it undermine the very
purpose of the procedure."
[21) In order to succeed in a Summary Judgment Application, as was held in
[22] In Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Limited, 2 it was held that;
1 Majola v Nt'tro Secur/tisation .t. (?ty) ltd 201-2 (1-) SA 22.l:> (SCA) parn 2S, footr.otes
ow-.itted.
;2. Maharqj v Barclays Nat-io11a/ Bank L/mited (.t.S:t/7S} (.1- q 7S} ZASCA .1-02 (.t.8
NoveJ111ber .t. q 7S} at pages .t.8-:t q_
8
"Accordingly, one of the ways in which a defendant may successfully oppose a claim
for Summary Judgment is by satisfying the court by Affidavit that he has a bona fide
defence to the claim."
Analysis
[23] It is clear from the above decisions that in order for a Plaintiff to succeed with a
Summary Judgment application, there must be no bona fide defence, which is good
in law to the claim. In this matter, the defence raised by the Respondent is that:
[24]
'The Defendant made payment to the Plaintiff on 03 March 2023 and on the 09th
November 2022, respectively, into the Plaintiffs' bank account as reflected on the
Central Supplier Database (CSD)"
[25] This defence of payment of the debt in full is a bona fide defence to the court
and raises a triable issue. Which can only be cleared and settled in a trial.
Conclusion
[26) The court is of the view that the Respondent has raised a bona fide defence,
which is good in law, that of having fully settled the debt.
[27] The question that this court could not be assisted with by both parties is
whether the payment made, according to the Respondent, to the bank account
appearing on the Central Suppliers Database (CSD), was at any point the bank
account of the Applicant, and if it was tampered with or subsequently altered or
changed, who changed it.
[28) Therefore, the court is satisfied that there is a bona fide defence raised, and
that there are triable issues in this matter which only a trial court may be in a better
position to determine.
q
Order
(29] In the premise having heard the Counsel for both parties, and having perused
the documents filed on record, the following order is made:
(1) The Application for Summary Judgment is refused and dismissed.
(2) Costs are granted in favour of the Respondent on a party and party
scale B.
Appearances :
For the Applicant
Instructed by:
For the Respondent:
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Counsel: Adv. KW Van Heerden
Attorney's Details: Walters & Stander
Attorneys
25 Road Street
Son Heuwel
Mbombela
Email: monigue@waltersstander.co.za
angie@waltersstander.co.za
Counsel:
Instructed by:
Date of Hearing: 10th October 2025
Date of Judgment: 04th March 2026
Attorney's Details: The State Attorney
R 104 Samora Machel
Drive, Mbombela
Email: MMsiza@justice.gov .za