IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) O F INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 2 4/02/2026 LENYAI J
CHACHAOKE MANAGEMENT PROJECTS CC
And
MAXIMUM PROFIT RECOVERY (PTY) LTD
CASE NO:11124 /2018
Plaintiff
Defendant
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the Par
ties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading to Caselines. The date and
time of hand-down is deemed to be 14:00 on 24 February 2026.
JUDGMENT
LENYAI J
1
[1] This is a claim wherein the plaintiff claims damages from the defendant based
on a breach of an agency agreement.
[2] This matter was designated as a commercial court matter. There were three
witnesses in this matter one for the plaintiff and two for the defendant. In terms
of the Commercial Court Practice Directive all the witnesses had provided their
full witness statements which constitutes the evidence in chief of the respective
witnesses.
[3] The parties were not able to agree on the issues that require determination by
the court, and they filed their lists of triable issues separately.
[4] The plaintiffs list of triable issues are the following:
4.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to payment in the sum of R
17 143 628.98 as claimed in its particulars of claim, and which
amount arises from the plaintiff's entitlement in terms of the
Agency Agreement entered into between the parties, to 20% of
all payments received from:
4.1.1 the Sekhukhune District Municipality in respect of a VAT
review and compliance contract awarded to the defendant
by the municipality by way of a letter of appointment as
service provider attached as annexure "CMP2" to the par
ticulars of claim, and which contract was, in terms of the
Agency Agreement, facilitated or brought on by the plain
tiffs efforts;
2
4.1.2 the Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality in respect of VAT
review services rendered by the defendant to the munici
pality in accordance with a letter of appointment which is
attached as annexure "CMP3" to the particulars of claim,
and which appointment was, in terms of the Agency Agree
ment, facilitated or brought on by the plaintiffs efforts.
4.2 Whether the plaintiff is, in view of the defendant's counterclaim,
indebted to the defendant in the amount of R257 002.02.
4.3 Whether the plaintiff had repaid the amount claimed by the de
fendant in its counterclaim and whether such repayment consti
tute an amount of R299 203, R42 199.98 of which constitute an
overpayment by which the defendant has been unjustly enriched
and therefore constitutes an amount that the plaintiff is entitled
to.
[5] The defendant's list of triable issues are the following:
5.1 Whether the agency agreement concluded between the parties included
an annexure "A", and whether in the absence of annexure "A" (on which
approved clients were to be identifies), the plaintiff had a valid mandate;
5.2 Whether the plaintiff was the effective cause of the conclusion of the
agreement between the defendant and the Sekhukhune District Munici
pality;
5.3 Whether there was compliance with clauses 10.1, 10.3, 10.3 and/or 10.5
of the agency agreement in respect of both the Sekhukhune District Mu
nicipality and the Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality;
3
5.4 Whether the plaintiff's claim to commission was compromised when it
accepted payment equal to 5% of the commission in respect of the in
come generated by the contract concluded between the defendant and
the Sekhukhune District Municipality;
5.5 Whether the plaintiff is liable to make payment to the defendant in terms
of the acknowledgement of debt agreement concluded on 7 April 2014.
[6] The plaintiff's witness statement is summarised as follows:
6.1 Mr Sesing Victor Sedibane is the witness for the plaintiff. He stated that
he is the sole member and owner of the plaintiff. On 17 January 2013 at
Pretoria at the defendant's offices, he entered into a written agency
agreement with Mr Bernard Saayman who was representing the defend
ant in his capacity as the Chief Operating Officer. A copy of the agree
ment is attached to the particulars of claim and is marked annexure
"CMP1".
6.2 In terms of paragraph 3.2 of the agency agreement, the defendant re
served the right and did in fact conclude similar written agency agree
ments with a number of other agents. In terms of paragraph 3.2, each
agency agreement was exclusive in that it related to the agreement be
tween the agent and the defendant only. In other words, each agency
agreement did not provide or cater for co-agents within the same agency
agreement. The agency agreement signed between the plaintiff and the
defendant did not bind or relate to any other party who was not men
tioned in the agreement. He further stated that he had never met any of
the defendant's other agents or had no dealings with them, nor did he
4
sign any document or agreement with any of the defendant's agents in
volving the plaintiffs agency agreement with the defendant.
6.3 Some of the terms of the agency agreement between the plaintiff and
the defendant were:
6.3.1 the plaintiff had to use its best endeavours to secure service
agreements between the defendant and clients, more specifically
municipalities, in terms of which the defendant would render ser
vices to the clients for a fee;
6.3.2 to the extent that the plaintiff was able to secure service contracts
on behalf of the defendant, i.e where the plaintiff was, through its
endeavours, the effective cause of the conclusion of any service
contract between the defendant and any municipality, the plaintiff
would, in terms of clause 10.1 of the agency agreement, become
entitled to a commission equal to 20% of the VAT exclusive fee
earned by the defendant from rendering VAT review services to
the municipality;
6.3.3 in terms of the agency agreement, the defendant was required to
pay the plaintiff the commission at the end of the month in which
the defendant received payment from the municipality for its VAT
review services;
6.3.4 in terms of paragraph 9.1 of the agency agreement, a restraint of
trade was placed upon the plaintiff for a period of 24 months after
termination of the agency agreement in that the plaintiff was re
strained from being associated with, canvassing or accepting an
5
instruction from any other company or business within South Af
rica, Namibia and Botswana for the same kind of seNices that the
plaintiff was rendering to the defendant as an agent under the
agency agreement. However, the defendant did not offer to com
pensate the plaintiff for the two year restraint of trade placed on
the plaintiff. This meant that the defendant prohibited the plaintiff
from earning an income from its normal trade which involved se
curing profitable seNice contracts for the defendant from munici
palities. In his view, denying or prohibiting any person - company
or individual - the right to earn a living is in breach of the Consti
tution of the Republic of South Africa ;
6.3.5 Paragraph 3.4 of the agency agreement stipulates that "the agent
shall only canvas business from clients or potential clients identi
fied by the Company [the Defendant] and communicated to the
Agent [Plaintiff] in writing as specified in an Annexure "A"'. Mr
Sedibane stated that the defendant provided him with an annex
ure "A" which listed Sekhukhune District Municipality as the client
identified by the defendant for the plaintiff to canvass business
from. The initials of Mr Barnard Saayman, the defendant's Chief
Operating Officer, appears at the bottom of annexure "A". He fur
ther stated that his understanding is that his attorneys have since
disclosed annexure "A" to the defendant's attorneys through what
he was told was a discovery process;
6.3.6 Mr Sedibane stated that in accordance with paragraphs . 3.1 and
3.3 of the agency agreement and using his best endeavours, he
6
canvassed and obtained the Sekhukhune District Municipality on
behalf of the defendant. His endeavours resulted in a letter of ap
pointment dated 24 February 2014 signed by the municipal man
ager. The letter of appointment was handed to him personally and
he in turn handed it over to the defendant's office. A copy of the
said letter was attached to the particulars of claim;
6.3.7 During the discovery process it emerged that the Sekhukhune
District Municipality had made a number of payments to the de
fendant for VAT review and compliance services the defendant
had rendered to the municipality. The payments were reflected in
a document titled" Maximum Profit Recovery (Pty) Ltd: Customer
QuickReport" which was also attached to the particulars of claim.
The document provides a breakdown of the amounts paid to the
defendant and the dates on which the payments were made.
Since the plaintiff was the effective cause of the defendant ren
dering VAT review and compliance services to the Sekhukhune
District Municipality , the plaintiff was, in terms of paragraph 10.1
of the agency agreement , entitled to 20% of the VAT exclusive
payments received by the defendant from the municipality . Such
commission was payable to the plaintiff at the end of the month
in which the defendant received the payments from the munici
pality.
6.3.8 According to the Customer QuickReport , the defendant received
the following amounts from the Sekhukhune District Municipality:
7
• 01 /10/2014
• 02/12/2014
• 17/01/2015
• 03/03/2016
• 12/08/2016
R 37 860.76
R21 059 301 .95
R 8939415 .01
R 216815.11
R 1 527 059.82
6.3.9 Under the agency agreement the plaintiff is entitled to 20% com
mission in respect of each individual payment received and the
total commission payable is R13 920 611.94. The defendant
made the following commission payments to the plaintiff (consid
ered an advance payment by the defendant) :
• 07/04/2014
• 12/12/2014
• 26/01/2015
• 26/05/2015
Total commission paid
R 45 600.00
R 309 772.58
R 271 863.22
R 640 033.28
R1 267 269.08
6.3.1 0 There is therefore a shortfall of R 12 653 342.86 in respect of the
amount of commission payable to the plaintiff by the defendant
for the 2014 and 2015 financial year which relate to the VAT re
view and compliance services rendered by the defendant to the
Sekhukhune District Municipality. The defendant is accordingly
indebted to the plaintiff in respect of the aforesaid amount, which
is due and payable to the plaintiff.
8
6.3.11 Mr Sedibane stated that, until the Customer QuickReport
emerged through the discovery process, he had made repeated
attempts to obtain information from the defendant , on what
amounts precisely it had received from the Sekhukhune District
Municipality under the contract of which the plaintiff was the ef
fective cause. The defendant refused to provide such information,
making it impossible for him to determine the defendant's true in
debtedness to the plaintiff in so far as the commission payable is
concerned .
6.3.12 Between 13 February 2020 and 13 February 2021, the defendant
continued to invoice and receive payments from the Sekhukhune
District Municipality for services rendered under the contract of
which the plaintiff was the effective cause. These amounts are set
out in the Customer QuickReport , which amounts included the
following :
• 27/02/2020 R3 278 547.75
• 13/03/2020 R 755 629.66
• 20/06/2020 R3 268 657.75
• 30/06/2020 R 755 743.66
• 18/08/2020 R2 010 636.55
• 02/10/2020 R1 246 619 .10
• 09/11/2020 R 938 062.68
9
• 13/12/2020
• 19/12/2020
• 21/01/2021
• 13/02/2021
R1 946 256.76
R1610831 .15
R1 767 214.81
R2 285 896.16
Total payments received R19 864 096.03
6.3.13 Under the agency agreement the plaintiff is entitled to 20% of the
above amounts received by the defendant from the Sekhukhune
District Municipality. The amount of commission the plaintiff is en
titled to is R3 972 819.20.
[7] The total unpaid commission due to the plaintiff from payments made to the
defendant by the Sekhukhune District Municipality thus amounts to
R17 893 431 .14.
[8] Mr Sedibane further stated that he canvassed and obtained business from the
Ephraim Moga le Local Municipality on behalf of the defendant. His endeavours
resulted in a letter of appointment dated the 19 February 2014 for the defendant
to provide VAT review services to the municipality. The said letter of appoint
ment was emailed to Mr Bernard Saayman who was defendant's Chief Operat
ing Officer at the time.
[9] The defendant earned and was paid a fee of R3 191 820. 72 from rendering vat
review services to the Ephraim Mogale Municipality. In terms of the agency
agreement, the plaintiff was entitled to a commission of 20% of the aforesaid
amount, such commission amounting to R634 368.14 plus VAT amounting to
R89 370.98. The total commission amounts to R727 735.12 and the defendant
10
paid the plaintiff R210 268.21 . The outstanding amount of commission is
R517 466.91 .
[1 0] Mr Sedibane stated that during the existence of the agency agreement, he had
obtained advances from the defendant. To this end and to secure repayment
of the advances, an acknowledgement of the debt was entered into and signed
between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant sought to recover the
amounts advanced to the plaintiff by way of bringing a counterclaim for payment
of the amount of R257 003.02. The defendant's schedule of payments dated
15 January 2015 reflects payments made in discharge of this debt. These pay
ments amount to an amount of R299 203.00 and were paid in four tranches by
way of deductions made by the defendant from the commission payable to the
plaintiff.
[11] Mr Sedibane stated that the total payments made by the plaintiff to the defend
ant in settlement the R257 003.02 amounts to R299 203.00. The plaintiff has
overpaid the defendant by an amount of R42 199.98, and it is entitled to a return
of the overpayment.
[12] During cross examination Mr Sedibeng testified that on the day the agency
agreement was signed there was an annexure "A" which referred to both mu
nicipalities.
[13] It was pointed out to him that he had put an incorrect date on the agency agree
ment when he signed. He conceded that the correct date was 2013 and not
2014 as initially indicated by him. His explanation was that when he signed, he
had forgotten that the year was 2013 and put the year as 2014 and he wrote
the 3 over the 4 to correct the mistake. It was put to him that his explanation did
11
not make sense. Mr Sedibeng testified that he was not in the office when Mr
Barnard Saayman signed on behalf of the defendant. He signed later on the
same day and made a mistake in the year.
[14] Mr Sedibane was asked if he was aware that the annexure "A" has a lifespan
of 2 months, and his answer was that he was not aware. The legal representa
tive of the defendant read clause 3.4 of the agency agreement to him which
stated that the lifespan of the agency agreement was 2 months, and he testified
that he accepted the clause.
(15] It was put to Mr Sedibane that the witness for the defendant will testify that there
would ordinarily be an annexure "A" prepared by the defendant and provided to
the agent and sometimes there would be an update of the annexure "A". He
was asked if that was his recollection. His response was no. He testified that
as an agent you would get the annexure "A" and you would work on it. He stated
that it is practically impossible to work and get a deal in 2 months. As and when
they have monthly meetings, they would give a progress report to Mr Barnard
Saayman. He further testified that he does not remember that the defendant
asked to revise the annexure "A".
[16] It was further put to Mr Sedibane that Mr Lesipa will testify on behalf of the
defendant that it was made very clear that the 2 months period applies and if
after 2 months you have not concluded a contract your mandate lapses. His
response was that he does not know Mr Lesipa.
[17] Mr Sedibane was questioned about the handwriting and the initials on the an
nexure "A" as well as the numbering F132. He responded that he does not know
whose handwriting was on the annexure "A" however he conceded that the
12
handwriting of Sekhukhune is the same on the annexure "A" produced by him
and that attached to the agency agreement of Mr Letsipa. He responded that
he received the list of municipalities from the defendant, and he also did not
know where the numbering comes from.
[18] Mr Sedibane was further questioned why, the annexure "A" was not attached
to the summons in February 2018 when the action was instituted, and it only
surfaced six years later during April 2024. His response was that it's been a few
year ago and he does not remember all the attachments. He finally said he
does not know why the annexure "A" was missing for six years.
[19] It was put to Mr Sedibane that the annexure "A" that was produced by him six
years latter is a carbon copy of the one that was attached to Mr Letsipa's
agency agreement. Mr Sedibane asked when that agreement was signed and
the response from the legal representative for the defendant was that it was
signed during March 2014 however the verbal agreement was during February
2014. Mr Sedibane insisted that a month earlier on the 26 February 2014,
Sekhukhune municipality gave him the letter of appointment and the agency
agreement with Mr Letsipa was only signed a month later. It was put to Mr
Sedibane that Mr Letsipa will testify that the agreement between his company
and the defendant was concluded on 5 February 2014.
[20] It was put to Mr Sedibane that the annexure "A" has a duration of two months
and based on the contract the plaintiff does not have a claim. He did not agree
with this statement and explained that in practice once you are given an annex
ure "A" you start to work and give monthly progress reports and you are given
13
time to canvass for a contract. He further stated that it has never been the case
that a new annexure "A" is given after the expiry of two months.
[21] Mr Sedibane was asked why there was a service level agreement for Ephraim
Mogale Municipality but for Sekhukhune District Municipality there was none.
He testified that after he delivered the letter of appointment from the Sekhu
khune District Municipality to the defendant , he was instructed not to contact
the municipality.
[22] It was put to Mr Sedibane that Mr Letsipa will testify that he was the one who
got the letter of appointment. The legal representative for the defendant di
rected the court to caselines reference F136 paragraph 10 of Mr Letsipa's wit
ness statement , where Mr Letsipa indicated that after the defendant's appoint
ment to perform VAT reviews services on behalf of the Sekhukhune District
Municipality , he continued his engagements with the municipality's representa
tives, especially the Finance department and his meetings were with the Chief
Financial Officer, Ms Melda Mokono. The court was also referred to F139 which
is an email from Mr Letsipa to Mr Barnard Saayman dated 4 February 2014
which attached a list of municipalities assigned to him by the defendant and
Sekhukhune District Municipality is included there. Mr Sedibane's response
was that by the time Mr Letsipa was meeting with the officials of the municipality
he was already barred from interacting with Sekhukhune District Municipality.
[23] Mr Sedibane was asked why he was barred. His response was that the defend
ant has a system to log into the client's systems. Once the defendant realised
that there was so much work at Sekhukhune District Municipality , he was barred
so that he must not benefit. He further testified that the signing of the agency
14
agreement between the defendant and Letsijo Investments (Pty) Ltd was con
cluded on the 28 March 2014 and as a result Mr Letsipa could not do any work
before the contract was signed.
(24] Mr Sedibane further testified that Mr Barnard Saayman's letter to Mr Letsipa
wherein he was reminding Mr Letsipa not to forget that the first meeting with
Sekhukhune District Municipality was arranged by Mr Sedibane they should
share the commission. Mr Sedibane testified that he requested his full commis
sion. Mr Saayman promised to arrange a meeting to resolve this issue however
the meeting never took place.
(25] It was put to Mr Sedibane that the invoices that the plaintiff prepared were cal
culated on 5% and the defendant's agent's payment receipt also indicated that
the commission was calculated on 5%. Mr Sedibane testified that he was re
quested by the defendant to specifically issue invoices for specific amounts
without the benefit of knowing how much the defendant had received from
Sekhukhune District Municipality. On some of the invoices the 5% would be
added by hand and he would attach his signature only to confirm that he had
claimed what he was required to claim by the defendant. Mr Sedibane further
testified that there should not be a deviation from the 20% commission without
a written amendment.
[26] It was further put to Mr Sedibane that the plaintiff never had an annexure "A"
issued to him, even if he had one, it had lapsed long before the letter of ap
pointment was secured.
[27] Mr Sedibane was asked what else did he do beside arrange the first meeting
with Sekhukhune. His response was that he canvassed for business for the
15
defendant and Mr Saayman insisted on attending the meeting with him. It was
put to Mr Sedibane that there were no emails from him during the period Janu
ary 2013 - 26 February 2014 to the defendant giving proper reports. His re
sponse was that he gave the original handwritten reports to the defendant and
never kept copies of the originals as he never thought that one day they would
be arguing in court. It was further put to him that he never put this fact in his
witness statement.
[28] Mr Sedibane was questioned how he calculated his claim. He testified that it
was after he realised that the Sekhukhune District Municipality paid the defend
ant more than he claimed from the defendant. When he received the Customer
Quick Report from the defendants in discovery of documents, he realised that
he was short changed.
[29] It was put to Mr Sedibane that he became aware of the Customer Quick Report
dated 26 May 2015 and the plaintiff only instituted its claim during 2018. In that
report it is indicated that all the plaintiffs previous invoices were for 5% of the
amount received from Sekhukhune District Municipality. Any reasonable per
son would have proceeded to issue new invoices for the balance. His response
was that he was trying to engage the defendant to correct the mistake and get
the balance and upon realising that the defendant was not going to pay the
difference , the plaintiff instituted the action. It was pointed out to Mr Sedibane
that this version was not stated in his witness statement.
[30] It was put to Mr Sedibane that it will be argued that the plaintiff should have
issued a new invoice, and it will further be argued that the plaintiff did not issue
a statement before instituting its claim.
16
[31] Mr Sedibane confirmed that the Sekhukhune letter of appointment was for 1
year specifically from 1 March 2014 to 1 March 2015. He further testified that
when the initial contract expires, the initiator has the right of first refusal to ex
tend the contract. Post the expiry of the contract the defendant continued to
work on the contract. It was put to him that this is the first time he brings this
up.
[32] During re-examination Mr Sedibane testified that there was no requirement for
progress reports in the agency agreement. He also stated that the agreement
did not allow for co-agency. He further testified that his understanding of the
agency agreement is that, if an agent is the effective cause of the contract and
that contract comes to an end, then that same agent would be granted the first
option to re-sign the same contract within two months.
[33] He reiterated that he was the one who obtained the letter of appointment and
drove to Pretoria to deliver it to the defendant. He also stated that Letsijo In
vestments (Pty) Ltd's agency agreement was signed on 28 March 2014, a
month after he had obtained the letter of appointment dated 26 February 2014.
[34] Mr Sedibane was asked by his legal representative how long does it take for
any agent to obtain a letter of appointment from a potential client. His response
was that it depends on the progress made and it varies from one institution to
the other.
[35] Mr Sedibane's legal representative asked him about the 5% commission issue.
His response was that the invoices of the plaintiff of 7 April 2014, 12 December
2014, 22 January 2015 26 and May 2015 did not indicate 5% commission, and
the defendant paid those invoices and the agent payment invoices from the
17
defendant similarly did not indicate a 5% commission. It was only during May
2015 that the Agent Payment receipt from the defendant indicated the 5% com
mission for invoices no. 10209, 10213, 10224 and 10268. He testified that, that
was the first time he saw the 5% commission on a document from the defend
ant. He further testified that the first time the dispute of commission arose was
in an email from the defendant dated the 7 August 2014.
[36] It was put to him that the contract period was from 1 March 2014 to 31 March
2015, and it was suggested by the defendant that he could not be paid on the
26 May 2015.His response was that he was paid as per an invoice dated the
same day and the amount paid was R640 033.28.
[37] The court adjourned on the afternoon of 8 September 2025 and resumed on
the morning of 10 September 2025.
[38] Mr Sedibane continued with his testimony in re-examination. He testified that
he arranged the first meeting with Sekhukhune District Municipality. He stated
that it took several visits from him to arrange this meeting and gave progress
reports to the defendant about his endeavors to arrange the meeting. Mr Saay
man told him that he will come to the meeting with him. This meeting took place
during October 2013 and only during January 2014 was he allowed to see the
Municipal Manager.
[39] Mr Sedibane's legal representative stated that, it was put to him that clause 3.1
of the Agency Agreement that annexure "A" has a lifespan of 2 months. His
response was that in practice it does not work like that. He stated that he started
working on the Sekhukhune contract from September 2013 and only got the
letter of appointment in February 2014, 5 months later.
18
[40] It was put to Mr Sedibane that there were two versions of the annexure "A"
pointed out to the court. The first version indicated Sekhukhune District Munic
ipality and the second version indicated Sekhukhune District Municipality and
Ephraim Mogale Municipality. His response was that as you are busy canvass
ing for work some municipalities would be added or withdrew from the annexure
"A,,.
[41] It was put to Mr Sedibane that an email written by Mr Saayman dated 7 August
2014, made a proposal that the plaintiff and another agent should equally share
the commission from the Sekhukhune contract. Should the two agents agree to
this proposal, Mr Saayman would send a document to formalise the new com
mission arrangement. His response was that he never agreed to the proposal
and he actually sent a letter dated 11 August 2014 rejecting the proposal. He
further testified that his understanding of the agency agreement was that any
amendment to the agreement must be reduced to writing and signed by all the
parties.
[42] Mr Sedibane testified that when he prepared invoices, he would be told by the
defendant the amount he should indicate on the invoice, and he assumed that
that was the 20% commission . He confirmed that the agents commission paid
was VAT exclusive. He further testified that he never received the document
from the defendant indicating that the commission paid was for 5%.
[43] Mr Sedibane testified that he is entitled to receive commission for the periods
of 2016, 2020 and 2021 because the defendants were still operating on the
letter of appointment obtained by him as no new letter of appointment was ob
tained. The plaintiff closed its case.
19
[44] The defendant had two witnesses, Mr Letsipa and Mr Saayman. Mr Letsipa
testified first.
[45] Mr Letsipa's witness statement is summarised as follows:
45.1 He is a director of Letsijo Investments (Pty) Ltd (Letsijo). The relationship
between his company Letsijo and the defendant started during the later
parts of 2013, when Letsijo acted as the defendant's agent in securing a
VAT review contract with the Matjhabeng Local Municipality.
45.2 Not long after the contract with Matjhabeng Local Municipality was se
cured, he started negotiating with the defendant's Chief Operating Of
ficer, Mr Barnard Saayman about the possibility of approaching other
municipalities on behalf of the defendant. By late December 2013 to
early January 2014, Mr Saayman assigned him a list of municipalities
which included Sekhukhune District Municipality.
45.3 On 4 February 2014 he addressed an email to Mr Saayman and at
tached an Excel spreadsheet providing updates on the municipalities he
was working on and the progress thereof. He also enquired about the
status of the other municipalities for potential engagement. In the update
report to Mr Saayman, he stated that based on his marketing efforts, the
Sekhukhune District Municipality made a decision to appoint the defend
ant and that an appointment will be made. A copy of the email together
with the excel spreadsheet were attached to the statement.
45.4 He confirmed that as part of his marketing he engaged in in-person
meetings and presentations with both the Sekhukhune District Munici
pality's manager, Ms MF Mokoko, and its Chief Financial Officer, Ms
20
Melda Mokono prior to the email update of the 4 February 2014. He
stated that Letsijo was the effective cause of the contractual relationship
between the defendant and the Sekhukhune District Municipality.
45.5 He stated that after the appointment of the defendant to perform VAT
review services on behalf of the Sekhukhune District Municipality, he
continued his engagements with the representatives of the municipality,
specifically the finance department and his meetings with Ms Mokono.
He compiled meeting notes and action items, and a copy of these notes
was shared with Ms Mokono at the subsequent meetings. He would also
provide Mr Saayman with formal updates and progress reports dated 14
March 2014 and 23 April 2014 as well as meeting notes and actions from
meetings with Ms Mokono dated 14 March 2014, 14 April 2014 and 26
June 2014.
45.6 Mr Letsipa stated that during August 2014, Mr Saayman informed him
the plaintiff claimed an entitlement to receive commission related to the
work performed on behalf of Sekhukhune District Municipality. He made
it clear to Mr Saayman that he had no doubt about his marketing efforts
and that Letsijo was the effective cause of the agreement. He further
stated that Mr Saayman informed him that the plaintiff once facilitated a
meeting for him at the Sekhukhune District Municipality and was there
fore making a claim for its efforts in facilitating the meeting. Mr Saayman
also indicated that he would prefer an amicable solution and asked him
to consider a proposal that he would send by email.
21
45.7 Mr Letsipa stated that he received the defendant's emailed proposal
dated 7 August 2014 which reads as follows:
"Sekhukhune DC refers. Please note the following:
It is clear that both of you have interest in this client. Max Prof's
Company policy is that a maximum commission of 20% per client
is paid towards commission to any agent. Therefore, my proposal
is that you share in the commission , i.e. 10% each of the MaxProf
invoice amount. Should you not agree to this proposal , the matter
will unfortunately have to be referred to our attorneys for their as
sistance.
Should you agree with the proposal, I will send you the required
document to confirm the new commission arrangement .
Due to the current dispute regarding the commission structure, I
respectfully request that you do not interact with the client on in
dividual basis until such time as the matter has been resolved.
We await your urgent response in this regard."
45. 8 Mr Letsipa stated that he rejected the proposal as he was of the view
that there was no genuine dispute . In the months of August and Septem
ber 2014, he engaged with Mr Saayman on the commission proposal
and managed to settle at a commission split that Letsijo would receive
15% whilst the plaintiff would receive the remaining 5%.
[46) During cross examination Mr Letsipa confirmed that he although he had signed
an agency agreement with the defendant on the 28 March 2014, he was already
22
assigned a list of Municipalities which included the Sekhukhune District Munic
ipality by the defendant during December 2013 to canvass business on behalf
of the defendant. He had meetings with Mr Saayman to give verbal reports on
the progress made and he was also requested to provide written reports and
meeting notes between himself and the officials of the municipalities, which he
did.
[47) Mr Letsipa testified that there was no other contract signed between Letsijo and
the defendant. He testified that he had a verbal agreement with Mr Saayman
that he will accept 15% commission and the plaintiff will receive 5%. He con
firmed that the other agent was not involved in the negotiations as he was only
communicating with Mr Saayman.
[48) It was put to Mr Letsipa that the email from Mr Barnard dated 8 August 2014
indicated that the first meeting with the client (Sekhukhune) was with Rapeipi
(Mr Sedibane) and the Municipality was not keen on being involved with a Po
litian. Mr Letsipa stated that he noted the contents of the email and denied that
he is a politician.
[49) Mr Letsipa testified that Letsijo was the effective cause of the contract between
the defendant and the Sekhukhune District Municipality and that the letter of
appointment was sent to the defendant by the Municipality.
[50] During re-examination Mr Letsipa testified that the agreement between the de
fendant and Letsijo was sent to him on 30 January 2014 for his signature and
he sent it back to the defendant to sign during February 2014.
23
[51] Mr Letsipa was asked if he is a politician. He testified that he is a professional
engineer and he has never been a politician and he has also never been re
ferred to as a politician.
[52] Mr Letsipa further testified that he personally met with the Municipal Manager
(MM), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the deputy CFO of Sekhukhune Dis
trict Municipality on 31 January 2014, and they confirmed to him that they will
issue the letter of appointment.
[53] The defendant's second witness was Mr Bernard Saayman. The summary of
his witness statement is as follows:
53.1 He is the director of the defendant and is also the Chief Operating Of
ficer. The defendant's field of expertise is VAT audits and recovery on
behalf of taxpayers, with specific specialization in VAT paid and recov
erable by municipalities.
53.2 In many instances the defendant appoint third party agents to negotiate
and conclude VAT recovery agreements on its behalf with various mu
nicipalities. He admits that the defendant represented by him, concluded
an agency agreement with the plaintiff and denies that at the time the
agency agreement was signed the annexure "A" was included.
53.3 In respect of the annexure "A" he refers to clause 3.4 of the agency
agreement which provides as follows:
"The Agent shall only canvass business from clients or potential
clients identified by the Company and communicated to the Agent
in writing (hereafter referred to as "Approved Clients", specified
24
as per "Annexure A" attached hereto) and the Agent shall not be
entitled to approach any other client or potential client"
53.4 He denies that the plaintiff was authorised to approach the Sekhukhune
District Municipality to secure any contracts on behalf of the defendant.
He also denied that any Service Level Agreement was concluded be
tween the defendant and the Municipality. As such, the plaintiff never
counter signed such an agreement as required by clause 10.2 of the
agency agreement.
53.5 He admits that notwithstanding the failure to conclude the Service Level
Agreement , the defendant did perform VAT audit and recovery services
on behalf of the Sekhukhune District Municipality during the period 1
March 2014 to 31 March 1015.
53.6 He states that he has noticed that the plaintiff refers to a document
marked annexure "A" in paragraph 8 of the witness statement of Mr Sed
ibeng. This document apparently formed part of the plaintiffs supple
mentary discovery affidavit dated 11 April 2024. The documents discov
ered in the said supplementary discovery affidavit were not immediately
made available to the defendant's attorneys . He instructed the attorneys
to obtain a copy of the alleged annexure" A" and they did so by means
of an email dated 13 May 2024. Eventually after several further requests
and reminders, a copy of the document the plaintiff asserts was annex
ure "A" to the agency agreement was received on 20 May 2024.
53. 7 Mr Saayman denies that the document received from the plaintiff's attor
neys, being the purported annexure "A" was ever annexed to the agency
25
agreement and further denies that the defendant had appointed the
plaintiff to secure any business from Sekhukhune District Municipality.
53.8 Mr Saayman stated that in respect of the Ephraim Moga le Local Munic
ipality, the situation is different as the plaintiff counter-signed the Service
Level Agreement concluded between the defendant and the municipal
ity. For this reason, the plaintiff became entitled to receive the commis
sion in respect of the work performed on behalf on this municipality.
53.9 In respect of the payments received from the Sekhukhune District Mu
nicipality and Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality, the evidence con
tained in the particulars of claim and Mr Sedibeng's witness statement,
is factually incorrect.
53.1 0 In respect of payments received from the Sekhukhune District Munici
pality, the defendant issued the following invoices for the services per
formed by it, and received payments on the following dates listed below:
53.10.1
53.10.2
53.10.3
Invoice 10209 dated 2 December 2014, in the amount of
R21 059 301 .95, which amount was paid on 12 December
2014;
Invoice 10213 dated 4 December 2014, in the amount of
R2 908 029.01 , which amount was paid on 17 December
2015;
Invoice 10224 dated 6 January 2015, in the amount of
R6 031 386.00, which amount was paid on 17 January
2015 (the amount paid was R8 939 415.01, which was
payment in respect of two invoices);
26
53.10.4
53.10.5
53.10.6
53.10.7
53.10.8
Invoice 10268 dated 3 March 2015, in the amount of
R216 815.11, which was paid on 25 March 2015;
Invoice 10654 dated 27 June 2016, in the amount of
R1 527 059.82, which was paid 12 August 2016;
In total the defendant received a VAT inclusive amount of
R31 742 591 .89. The defendant did not receive a payment
of R37 860 467. 76 as alleged by the plaintiff. The defend
ant attached a copy of the defendant's statement showing
a credit note in respect of this payment as well as the credit
note no 10194;
The defendant received payment of a VAT exclusive
amount of R27 844 378.85 for the work performed on be
half of the Sekhukhune District Municipality during the pe
riod of the appointment, being 1 March 2014 to 31 March
2015. Mr Saayman further pointed out that commissions
payable to agents are calculated with reference to VAT ex
clusive amounts. Although the plaintiff recognises this fact
in paragraph 7.2 of its witness statement, it proceeds to
incorrectly calculated commission with reference to VAT
inclusive amounts;
The plaintiff, in its witness statement also claims payment
in respect of further commissions related to VAT review
and recovery work that the defendant performed on behalf
of the Sekhukhune District Municipality during 2020 and
27
53.10.9
2021. These additional claims do not form part of the plain
tiffs pleaded case, and the defendant objects to the inclu
sion of these claims in the current claim. Mr Saayman
stated that he was advised that the inclusion is possibly an
attempt to avoid the fact that the potential claims have be
come prescribed;
Mr Saayman stated that he will, out of an abundance of
caution and without any prejudice to the defendant's posi
tion in law, respond to the additional claims as follows:
(a) The defendant's appointment by the Sekhukhune
District Municipality on which the plaintiff relies for
its cause of action, was for a period of one year
from 1 March 2014 to 31 March 2015,as stipulated
in the agency agreement.
(b) In light of the limited duration of the appointment, all
claims for later periods fall outside the window of the
appointment and has nothing to do with the plaintiff.
(c) Clause 10.1 of the agency agreement specifically
refers to the period during which an agent may be
come entitled to commission as the initial period,
and defines the phrase "initial contract" as follows:
"The commission payable to the agent for the
introduction and successful conclusion of an
28
initial contract between the Company and a
client introduced by the Agent, ...
. . . The term "initial contract" shall mean the
first contract concluded between the Com
pany and the client and exclude any subse
quent contracts between the Company and
the client, unless the Agent concludes a fur
ther agreement as provided for in paragraph
10. 5 hereunder."
(d) Mr Saayman stated that for the avoidance of doubt,
he points out that the plaintiff and the defendant did
not conclude a further agency agreement on any
later date. In fact, on 1 September 2017, the de
fendant concluded an agency agreement with
Phahlana Monare IT Solutions (Pty) Ltd ( Phah
lana), a copy of which is attached to the witness
statement, in terms of which Phahlana was ap
pointed as an agent. He specifically points out that
the annexure "A" to this agreement lists the Sekhu
khune District Municipality as an approved client.
(e) Pursuant to the efforts of Phahlana the defendant
received a new appointment on 19 December 2019
to perform further VAT recovery services and con-
29
53.10.10
53.10.11
53.10 .12
eluded a Service Level Agreement (SLA) in Febru
ary 2020, a copy of which is attached to the witness
statement. Taking this into consideration the de
fendant denies that it can be liable to pay further
commissions to the plaintiff.
In respect of Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality, the defendant
issued the following invoices in respect of the VAT review ser
vices it performed, and received payments on the following dates:
53.10.10.1 Invoice 10286 dated 19 March 2015, in the amount
of R220 051.56, which was paid on 2 April 2015;
53.10.10.2 Invoice 10689 dated 16 August 2016, in the amount
of R33 204.97, which was paid on 31 August 2016;
53.10.10.3 Invoice 10804 dated 1 March 2017, in the amount
of R142 143.86, which was paid on 20 March 2017;
53.10.10.4 Invoice 10872 dated 13 June 2017, in the amount
of R849 697.60, which was paid on 29 June 2017.
In total, the defendant received VAT inclusive payments from
Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality in the amount of
R1 254 096.99, which is a VAT exclusive amount of
R1 092191 .22.
The defendant made payment to the plaintiff in an amount of
R210 268.21 inclusive of VAT, and the plaintiff admits receiving
30
53.10.13
53.10.14
this amount. The defendant is therefore not indebted to the plain
tiff at all.
Mr Saayman states that Letsijo Investments (Pty)Ltd (Letsijo) duly
represented by Mr Letsipa, is the effective cause of the agree
ment between the defendant and the Sekhukhune District Munic
ipality. He further states that he is aware of the efforts made by
Mr Letsipa to secure the agreement , as he was kept up to date
on Mr Letsipa's the meetings and interactions with the Municipal
Manager, Ms Mokoko and the Chief Operational Officer, Ms Mc
kone. He also provided information to Mr Letsipa to enable him to
ensure that the municipality could validly appoint the defendant
as service provider in terms of regulation 32 of the Municipal Sup
ply Chain Management Regulations, 1 July 2005, Local Govern
ment: Municipal Finance Management Act, 56 of 2003.
Mr Saayman stated that, during August 2014, when the dispute
about who was the effective cause was raised, he informed Mr
Letsipa about the dispute. He proposed through an email dated 7
August 2014, that instead of allowing the dispute to escalate, an
agreement should be reached in terms of which the 20% commis
sion be split on a 10% each between the plaintiff and Letsijo. Ini
tially Letsijo rejected the proposal however after some further ne
gotiations, a compromise agreement was concluded in terms of
which 5% of the commission would be paid to the plaintiff and
Letsijo would receive 15% of the commission related to the
Sekhukhune District Municipality.
31
53.10.15
53.10.16
The plaintiff gave effect to the compromise by issuing 3 invoices
calculated at the rate of 5% to the defendant and these invoices
were paid in full. The particulars of the invoices and the defend
ant's reconciliation and proof of payment were attached to the
statement and they are as follows:
(a) Invoice dated 12 December 2014 in the amount of
R423 772.58. The defendant's reconciliation document
dated the same date shows that an advance of
R100 000.00 previously made to the plaintiff was deducted
and an amount of R309 772.58 was paid.
(b Invoice dated 22 January 2015 in the amount of
R271 863.32. The defendant's reconciliation document
shows that two advances in the amounts of R148 603.00
and R5 000.00 previously made to the plaintiff were de
ducted from the payment. Plaintiff was paid the full amount
of R271 863.32.
(c) Invoice dated 26 May 2015 in the amount of R 640 033.29,
and the amount was paid in full.
Mr Saayman states that the total amount paid to the plaintiff in
respect of the three invoices amount to R1 221 669.1 0. In addi
tion, the plaintiff also received advanced payments in the amount
of R253 603.00. As such the total payment received by the plain
tiff amounts to R1 325 242.64 plus VAT. This equates to 5% of
32
53.10.17
the VAT exclusive amount earned by the defendant for the ser
vices rendered to the Sekhukhune District Municipality. Mr Saay
man further states that the amount paid to the plaintiff was paid
in consequence of the invoices received and were not simply ar
bitrary amounts.
Mr Saayman also made mention of the counterclaim in his state
ment.
[54] It is noteworthy to mention here that the defendant abandoned its counter
claims, and it is not necessary to entertain them any further.
[55] During cross examination Mr Saayman confirmed that the agency agreement
is prepared by the defendant and denied that the agreement had an annexure
"A".
[56] It was put to Mr Saayman that an agency agreement without an annexure "A"
is worthless . His response was no. He stated that after the agency agreement
is signed, the agent must send a list of names of which municipalities he pro
poses to canvass work for the defendant. Thereafter if the defendant agrees,
then he will be mandated to canvass those municipalities. He further confirmed
that the plaintiff was not appointed to secure business from Sekhukhune District
Municipality.
[57] Mr Saayman maintained that the plaintiff did not have the authority to canvass
work from the Sekhukhune District Municipality. He testified that the appoint
ment letter was secured by Letsijo. When questioned how he got hold of the
letter of appointment, his response was that it must have been emailed to the
office. He denied receiving the letter of appointment from Mr Sedibane.
33
[58] Mr Saayman confirmed that the agency agreement with the plaintiff was signed
during January 2013 and that he did attend a meeting with Mr Sedibane and
some officials of the Sekhukhune District Municipality. He further stated that he
does not remember who they met at the Municipality. After the meeting he told
Mr Sedibane to stop engaging with the Municipality.
[59] Mr Saayman confirmed that he wrote an email to Mr Letsipa on 8 August 2014
advising him about the dispute that arose regarding the commission and re
minding him that his first meeting with the client was with Mr Sedibane. After
some negotiations there was a compromise and Mr Letsipa accepted a com
promise of 15% commission and the 5% would be paid to the plaintiff. This
compromise was communicated to Mr Sedibane and he agreed.
[60] It was put to Mr Saayman that the plaintiff had no idea what the defendant was
being paid by the municipality. His response was that the plaintiff was not the
agent in this contract and he would therefore not be given the information of the
invoices issued and sent to the municipality. He further testified that those in
voices were discovered and they were also in his witness statement. He further
testified that when they issue invoices to the municipality, a copy is sent to the
agent so that the agent can assist with collection of the payment from the mu
nicipality and for the agent to know the amount invoiced.
[61] Mr Saayman was questioned about why the 5% commission was never indi-
cated on the payment invoices generated by the defendant before the 26 May
2015. He testified that this was included after the plaintiff agreed to accept the
5%. He further stated that this was not a new commission as the plaintiff was
34
not an agent on this contract. It was a compromise in acknowledgment of the
initial meeting arranged by Mr Sedibane .
[62] It was put to Mr Saayman that the defendant received payments from the
Sekhukhune District Municipality in 2016, and the plaintiff believes he is entitled
to commission on that payment as the work done was based on the 26 February
2014 letter of appointment. He testified that they received new work from the
Municipality and a new Power of Attorney was given to the defendant during
April 2016 . He further stated that the 2020 payment was in regard to a tender
that was awarded to the defendant and the service level agreement for that
appointment was discovered . The new work was not canvassed by the plaintiff,
and an appointment letter cannot be for longer than three years.
[63] During re-examination Mr Saayman confirmed that the defendant was ap
pointed by the Sekhukhune District Municipality in terms of Regulation 32 of the
Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations . He further explained that
the regulation allows for circumstances where a municipality has awarded a
tender to someone, then another municipality can link in on the contract for the
same fee or less for not more that 2.6 months. He confirmed that the defendant
has never been appointed to do work for the municipality for more than three
years.
[64] He further confirmed that after the 5% compromise was agreed upon, Mr Sed
ibane was given the invoice that was sent to the municipality and the payments
received from the municipality . Thereafter after some discussions with Mr Sed
ibane the invoice for the 5% was issued and Mr Sedibane signed the invoice.
35
[65] At the heart of this matter is whether an annexure "A" was attached to the
agency agreement that was concluded between the parties.
[66] Section 15 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, 25 of 1965 provides as
follows:
"Admissions on Record
It shall not be necessary for any party in any civil proceedings to prove
nor shall it be competent for any such party to disprove any fact on the
record of such proceedings .
11
[67] In paragraph 4 of the amended particulars of claim, the plaintiff pleads as fol
lows:
"On or about 17 January 2013 and at Pretoria the plaintiff, duly represented by
Sedibane Rapeipi entered into a written agreement of agency with the defend
ant, duly represented by its Chief Operational Officer, Bernard Saymaan. A
copy of the agreement is attached hereto, marked annexure "CMP1.
11
[68] In its plea the defendant admitted the allegations in paragraph 4 of the particu
lars of claim. It is common cause that the agency agreement relied upon by the
plaintiff and attached to the particulars of claim as annexure "CMP1" does not
contain the annexure "A" as stipulated in clause 3.4 of the agency agreement.
[69] It is therefore an admitted fact on the pleadings that the annexure "A" was not
annexed to the agency agreement relied upon by the plaintiff.
[70] The allegation made in paragraph 4 of the amended particulars claim was re
peated by Mr Sedibane in his witness statement. However, during cross exam
ination, Mr Sedibane testified that the annexure "A" was attached to the agency
36
agreement on the day the agreement was signed. He however could not ex
plain to the court why the said annexure "A" was not attached to the particulars
of claim. It is also noteworthy to mention at this point that the annexure "A" was
also not attached to Mr Sedibane's witness statement which was uploaded onto
carelines on 4 April 2024.
[71] In his witness at paragraph 8, Mr Sedibane stated that the annexure "A" has
been disclosed through discovery and it bears the initials of Mr Saymaan at the
bottom thereof. The court observed that the annexure "A" was not attached to
the witness statement. He also testified during cross examination that the an
nexure "A" was in fact annexed to the agency agreement on the day it was
signed.
[72] Upon careful scrutiny regarding the discovery of the annexure "A" by the plaintiff
the following has been observed:
72.1 The summons was issued on 19 February 2018, and the agency agree
ment was attached to the particulars of claim, and the annexure "A" was
not attached.
72.2 On 26 February 2020, Mr Sedibane deposed to his first discovery affi
davit and the annexure "A" was not discovered by the plaintiff.
72.3 On 1 O April 2024 , more than six years after the institution of the action,
a supplementary discovery affidavit was delivered by Mr Sedibane. Item
6 in the first schedule (Part A) is referred to as "annexure "A" - Sekhu
khune District Municipality is listed on the annexure." The date of the
document is stated as 30 November 2020.
37
72.4 The annexure "A" mentioned in the supplementary discovery affidavit
was not immediately made available to the defendant. According to Mr
Saymaan, in paragraph 15 and 16 of his witness statement, his attorneys
struggled to get the document from the plaintiff's attorneys and when it
was eventually produced the defendant denied that the said document
was annexed to the agency agreement.
72.5 Mr Sedibane could not explain why the Annexure "A" he insists was an
nexed to the agency agreement had gone missing let alone how it mys
teriously resurfaced.
72.6 Upon closer scrutiny of the annexure "A" produced by the plaintiff after
six years, the document bore remarkable resemblance to the one that
was given to Letsijjo. Mr Sedibane could not explain why the handwriting
on the document produced by the plaintiff had two different handwritings .
72.6 The court observed that the plaintiff produced the annexure "A" on 20
May 2024, which is after the Mr Sayman had filed his witness statement
and had attached the annexure "A" that was given to Letsijo. What is
also disturbing is the fact that the numbering of the document (F132) is
similar to the numbering on the document attached to Mr Saymaan's
witness statement. However, the handwriting of the Sekhukhune District
Municipality and Ephraim Mogale Local Municipality on this document
are not the same. During cross examination Mr Sedibane could not ex
plain why the handwritings are not the same on the annexure .
[73] The agency agreement is crystal clear at clause 3.4 and states as fol
lows:
38
"The agent shall only canvass business from clients or potential clients
identified by the Company and communicated to the Agent in writing
(hereinafter referred to as "the Approved Clients", specified as per "An
nexure A" attached hereto} and the Agent shall not be entitled to ap
proach any other client or potential client. ... "
[74] I am of the view that the version of Mr Sedibane that the document produced
by him after six years is the annexure "A" that he purports was annexed to the
agency agreement when they signed is probably not true and stands to be re
jected by the court.
[75] The other concern that I have with the plaintiff's matter is that the plaintiff's
pleaded case is for a claim for damages from the defendant based on the
agency agreement concluded between the parties. However, during the trial,
the plaintiff's witness gave evidence on the basis that it seeks payment of a
contractual debt, that is specific performance.
[76] In the matter Molusi and others v Voges NO and others 2016 (3) SA 370 CC
at para 28, the apex court stated as follows"
"The purpose of pleadings is to define the issues for the other party and
the court. And it is for the court to adjudicate upon the dispute and those
issues alone ... "
[77] It is common cause that the plaintiff's case is based on the agency agreement.
For the plaintiff to succeed in its claim, it should have pleaded that it had com
plied with the express terms of the agreement.
39
[78) I have already found that there was no annexure "A" annexed to the agency
agreement and this in my view collapses the plaintiffs case. The defendant had
no authority to approach or canvass for work from the Sekhukhune Municipality.
[79] Mr Sedibane testified that he was the effective cause of the agreement between
the defendant and the Sekhukhune District Municipality as he was the one who
first introduced them. Mr Sayman confirmed the first meeting however he testi
fied that he stopped Mr Sedibane from interacting any further with the munici
pality. Mr Sedibane could not produce any evidence of his endeavors to secure
the contract. The other agent who was given the annexure "A" did produce re
ports, meeting notes and emails showing exactly what he did and who he met
at the municipality to secure the contract. I am not convinced by Mr Sedibane's
evidence and his version stands to be rejected by the court.
[80] I am of the view that the plaintiff has failed to present the necessary evidence
to succeed in its claim
[81] In the premise the following order is made:
1. The plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs, including the costs of coun
sel on scale C.
MMD LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
40
Appearances
Counsel for Plaintiff
Instructed by
Counsel for Defendant
Instructed by
Date of hearing
Hearing Resumed
Plaintiff filed Heads of Argument
Defendant filed heads of Argument.
Hearing of Closing Arguments
Date of Judgement
Adv C Dauds
Ramushu Mashile Twala Inc
Adv AJP Eis SC
Ey Stuart Inc
08 September 2025
10 September 2025
18 September 2025
25 September 2025
25 September 2025
24 February 2026
41