REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 070776/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JU
(3) R VI ED: YES
I , '-:Ji>
In the matter between:
ORICRED (PTY) LIMITED
Registration number: 2022/309147/07
and
KGUDISA PEU MEDIA (PTY) LIMITED
Registration number: 2019/208146/07
JUDGMENT
ALLY,AJ
Applicant
Respondent
[1] Thi9 is an opposed application for payment of the amount of R504 390-17 (five
hundred and four thousand three hundred and ninety rand and seventeen cents)
in terms of a discounting agreement between the parties.
[2] The applicant was represented by Adv. A. Taljaard and the respondent was not
represented at all at the hearing of the application. No communication was
received regarding such absence, by the applicant's representatives nor by the
Judge's secretary. This absence without communication is disappointing to the
say the least taking into account that there was no withdrawal of representation
by the Attorneys of record.
[3] The respondent's representatives also, did not bother to submit heads of
argument.
[4] The Court, however, did have a copy of the answering affidavit of the respondent
and will consider same in adjudicating this matter.
[5] The respondent raised two points in limine in its answering affidavit, namely:
i). the applicant has chosen the incorrect procedure in claiming the
abovementioned amount allegedly claimed;
ii). there has been an undue delay in claiming the abovementioned amount
to the prejudice of the respondent which amounts to an abuse of process of
process and thus warrants a dismissal.
[6] It is a pity that the respondent was not present to flesh out the points in limine so
as to persuade the court of their appropriateness in the circumstances of this
case.
[7] Be that as it may, the applicant has contended that the points in limine are without
merit. Firstly, applicant's Counsel submits that the first point in limine is misplaced
in that in the present matter the Court is dealing with a liquid claim. In this regard,
as I understood Mr Taljaard, the claim is one that is easily determinable by
making calculations from the figures apparent in the agreement1. Furthermore,
the agreement2 contains a certificate of debt clause which is similar to certificates
of balance found in cases involving banks.
1 Fatti's Engineering Co (Pty) Ltd v Vendick Spare (Pty) Ltd 1962 (1) SA 736 @ 739
2 Caselines: Section 006-21 - 006-35
[8] I am in agreement with Mr Taljaard that the claim by the applicant is a liquidated
one capable of easy determination recognised by our courts3.
[9] Secondly, the applicant's Counsel submits that the second point in limine holds
no water and that the case4 relied on by the respondent is distinguishable on the
facts. Mr Taljaard submits that the most distinguishable factor between the
Cassimjee case5 and the present case before court is that the delay in the
Cassimjee case was twenty years.
[1 OJ In respect of the prejudice, Mr Taljaard submits that the parties entered into an
agreement freely and voluntarily and the respondent agreed to all the terms
which included the penalty fee and they cannot now cry foul at the time of
repayment.
[11] No argument has been made by the respondent that the agreement is contrary
to public policy, specifically, the respondent by its absence has not shown nor
persuaded this Court that certain clauses should be struck out for_ being contrary
to public policy. In any event a court must be wary of declaring contracts to be
contrary to public policy6.
[12] Insofar as is necessary, in my view, there is no dispute of fact of the kind
mentioned in the well-known case of Plascon Evans and the cases dealing with
the referral to oral evidence of disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on the
papers7. The said cases insist on there being a genuine or bona fide dispute of
fact. The respondent does not take the court into its confidence in disputing the
amount claimed and thereby indicating what amount is owed. Such conduct does
not, in my view, amount to laying a basis for a genuine dispute of fact but rather
a bare denial which cannot be countenanced by this court.
[13] Taking the above into consideration, it is my view that the applicant has made
out a case for the amount claimed.
3 Unreported judgment: Thaw Trading v Central Lake Trading 214 (Pty) Ltd 2013 NWHCM@
para16 and the cases mentioned therein
4 Cassimjee v Minister of Finance 2014 (3) SA 198 SCA
para16 and the cases mentioned therein
4 Cassimjee v Minister of Finance 2014 (3) SA 198 SCA
5 supra
6 Afrox Healthcare Beperk v Strydom 2002 (6) SA 21 para 8
7 Wightman v Headfour (Pty) Ltd & Ano 2008 (3) SA 371 SCA
[14] In reopect of costs, the norm that costs should follow the result must pertain in
this matter. However, the applicant has submitted that costs should be awarded
on an attorney and client scale as same is contained in clause 10.3 of the
agreement Accordingly, the applicant is entitled to invoke the scale of attorney
and client costs.
[15] Accordingly, the following Order shall issue:
a). the Order marked "X" is made an order of court.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIG / OURT
PRETORIA
Electronically $Ubmltted therefore unsigned
Delivered: This judgement was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 19 February 2026.
Date of hearing: 1 September 2025
Date of judgment: 19 February 2026
4
For the Applicant: Adv. A. Taljaard instructed by
SEFUME ATTORNEYS INC
modise@sai.legal/zama@sai .legal
For the Respondent: No appearance
MAKGAILA & ASSOCIATES
info@makgaila.co.za