About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 556
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Der Zucker Backer (Pty) Ltd v Parker and Another (136898/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 556 (28 April 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO
: 136898/2024
DATE
:
28-04-2026
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : YES / NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
In
the matter between
DER
ZUCKER BACKER (PTY) LTD
PLAINTIFF
and
SHANI RAE INKACHI
PARKER
FIRST DEFENDANT
RONALD BENTON
PARKER
SECOND DEFENDANT
JUDGMENT
DREYER
AJ
: The Plaintiff is seeking summary judgment in
the amount of R150 000 to be paid to the Plaintiff by the First
and Second Defendants, jointly and severally, as well as interest and
costs.
The
defence put up by the First and Second Defendants as per the Plea and
the Opposing Affidavit is that a meeting took place on
9 December
2021. Present at that meeting was the First Defendant, the Second
Defendant, Aton Treister (“Treister”)
(the sole director
of the Plaintiff), as well as a sibling, Tyrell Tintinger. At the
said meeting an oral agreement was entered
into between the First
Respondent acting in her capacity as director of the Plaintiff at
that time, the Second Respondent acting
in his capacity as
shareholder of the Plaintiff at that time and Treister acting in his
capacity as shareholder and director of
the Plaintiff at that time in
terms whereof an amount of R150 000.00 would be paid from the
Plaintiff’s bank account
held with First National Bank by the
First Defendant to the Second Defendant. The said amount would be
paid to a consultant to
negotiate a settlement of the SARS business
debt of the Plaintiff that arisen while Sheila Anne Parker (who
passed away on 25 June
2021) was in control of the affairs of the
business. The First and Second Defendants aver that all the directors
and shareholders
of the Plaintiff were aware of the oral agreement
that was concluded on 9 December 2021 as well as the terms and
conditions.
With regards to the said
meeting, the Treister states that he was not present at the meeting
and there was no such meeting.
Treister states in paragraph
7.2.10 of the Founding Affidavit in support of Summary Judgment that
he did not attend any meeting
with the First and Second Defendants or
with any third party, nor was such meeting convened. In paragraph
7.2.11 of the Founding
Affidavit Treister states, with regards to the
averment that all the directors and shareholders of the Plaintiff was
aware of the
oral agreement that Mr Gary Smith (“Smtih”),
a 10% shareholder of the Plaintiff, was not present at the meeting.
Smith
has expressly denied any knowledge of such a meeting and has
also denied any awareness of the oral agreement. The Confirmatory
Affidavit of Smith is attached to the Founding Affidavit as Annexure
“SJ3”.
Treister goes further and
he states in paragraph 7.3.4 of the Founding Affidavit, he
unequivocally denies that such meeting took
place and he sets out he
was unwell during the period in which the unlawful payment was
affected and in fact remained at home for
the entirety of what week.
This was due to the successive passing of his mother, father and
brother within short period of time.
Treister also the First and
Second Respondents were fully aware of his personal circumstances at
the time.
The response of the First
and Second Respondents to paragraph 7.2.10 of the Founding Affidavit
is to state that Treister was present
and participated at the
meeting.
The response of the First
and Second Respondents to paragraph 7.2.11 of the Founding Affidavit
is to admit that Smith was not present
at the meeting.
The response of the First
and Second Respondents to paragraph 7.3.4 of the Founding Affidavit
is to state “
Save to admit that it is our submission that a
meeting took place on 9 December 2021 at which the oral agreement was
concluded,…”
and to deny the content of paragraph
7.3.4 and put Treister to the proof thereof.
The First and Second
Defendants furthermore aver that the outstanding obligations to SARS
were substantial and were diminished after
the involvement of the
consultant. In support of this averment the First and Second
Defendants attach to the Opposing Affidavit
Vat Statements of Account
for the period 2017/03/01 to 2018/02/28 (with a closing balance of
R472 130.29), 2018/03/01 to 2019/02/28
(with a closing balance
of R613 850.78) and 2021/03/01 to 2021/12/31 (with a closing
balance of R58 881.25). The VAT
Statements of Account for the
periods 2019/03/01 to 2020/02/28 and 2020/03/01 to 2021/02/28 are
omitted from the Opposing Affidavit.
The VAT Statement for the period
2021/03/01 to 2021/12/31 reflects that the closing balance of
R58 881.25 are made up of an
arrear amount of R4 330.89
under 60 days and an arrear amount of R54 550.36 under 120+
days. Attached to the Founding
Affidavit as Annexure “SJ4”
is the VAT Statement of Account for the period 2021/03/01 to
2022/02/28. As is evident
from this VAT Statement of Account
the last payment made to SARS was on 2021/11/25 and further that the
Plaintiff appears in good
standing with SARS. The version of
the First and Second Respondents that the outstanding obligations to
SARS were substantial
and were diminished after the involvement of
the consultant is therefore improbable and stands to be rejected.
The First
and Second Defendants do not put up any material
facts with regards to the consultant subsequent to the alleged
meeting held on
9 December 2021. The consultant has since
passed away. It is unclear when the consultant passed away.
The Court is asked to
draw the inference that the reduction in the indebtedness was because
of the consultant that was appointed,
even though it is not supported
by the pleadings.
The defence as pleaded by
the First and Second Defendants does not raise any issue for trial.
The matter was previously
enrolled on the unopposed summary judgment roll of 11 August 2025.
The First and Second Defendants served
their Opposing Affidavit on 7
August 2025, 1 (one) court day before the hearing. The matter was
subsequently removed from the roll
and costs reserved.
In the circumstances I am
going to grant summary judgment against the First and Second
Defendants in favor of the Plaintiff in the
amount of R150 000.00
together with interest on the amount of R150 000 from
10 December 2021. Cost on
a party-party scale, scale
Bi including the reserved cost of 11 August 2025.
If the parties can
prepare a draft order and just email it to my secretary, I can sign
it.
DREYER
AJ
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
DATE
:
………………
TRANSCRIBER’S
CERTIFICATE
I,
the undersigned, hereby certify that
so far as it is audible to
me
, the aforegoing is a true and correct transcript of the
proceedings recorded by means of a digital recorder in the matter
between:
DER
ZUCKER BACKER (PTY) LTD
//
SHANI
RAE INKACHI PARKER
CASE
NUMBER:
136898/2024
RECORDED
AT:
JOHANNESBURG
DATE
HELD:
28-04-2026
NUMBER
OF pages:
4
PROBLEMS
EXPERIENCED WITH RECORDING
1.
There is a terrible noise on the recording and the presiding officer
is very soft.
DATE
COMPLETED:
15-05-2026
TRANSCRIBER:
FJ JOOSTE