REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 34034/ 2020
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
__________________________
SIGNATURE
Date: 15 May 2026
In the matter between:
MASANA PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD Plaintiff
and
Q-TIQUE 27 (PTY) LTD 1st Defendant
ABEL MOLASE MODISE 2nd Defendant
JUDGEMENT
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MOOKI J
2
1 The matter came before the Court by way of a trial. The defendants were
initially represented by John Broido Attorney, who then withdrew . The
second defendant (Mr Modise) appeared in person during the proceedings.
2 The matter was certified a commercial court matter. The parties presented
their respective evid ence by way of witness statements . The plaintiff
(Masana) submitted two witness statements, in the names of Rhyan
Rajkishore and Morena Sithole, respectively. Only Mr Sithole confirmed his
statement and was cross -examined on that statement. The Court
disregarded the witness statement by Rhyan Rajkishore. Mr Modise
submitted a witness statement on behalf of the defendants.
3 Masana sues the defendants on a fuel supply agreement between Masana
and the first defendant ( Q-Tique). Mr Modise is sued based on having
bound himself as a surety and as a co-principal debtor . The defendants
have pleaded a counterclaim, seeking relief against Masana.
4 Masana pleaded that Masana and Q-Tique concluded a fuel supply
agreement which commenced on 16 September 2015 . Q-Tique on-sold the
fuel to the eThekwini Municipality (the Municipality). Q-Tique agreed to
pay for the supply within 30 days of the invoice date. Q-Tique had other
accounts in addition to the account with the Municipality.
5 Masana was entitled to cease supply should Q-Tique fail to settle any
invoice. Masana was also entitled to oblige Q-Tique to furnish security.
Masana and Mr Modis e, a director of Q-Tique, concluded a suretyship
agreement on 15 June 2016. Mr Modise bound himself as surety and co-
3
principal debtor for Q-Tique’s existing and future obligations to Masana. Mr
Modise renounced the usual benefits.
6 Masana issued summons against Q-Tique and Mr Modise, based on Q-
Tique’s failure to settle invoices for fuel supplied to the Municipality and
the road water accounts. Masana claimed R26 730 013.05 in respect of the
Durban Municipality account and R1 679 330.30 in respect of the Road
Water account.
7 Q-Tique denied liability on the pleadings. It raised several defences,
including that Masana raised non -existent charges and raised charges on
invoices that were late . Mr Modise admitted the suretyship and its terms
but denied liability . He pleaded the same defences as those raised by Q -
Tique, and what the defendants raised in their counterclaim.
8 The defendants pleaded an agreement with Masana in 2018 in terms of
which Masana will only supply diesel at the grade 50 ppm. The defendants
say Masana breached this agreement by allowing Q-Tique’s customers to
use diesel 500 ppm, which resulted in additional charges be ing added to Q-
Tique’s account.
9 The defendants counterclaimed as follows. Masana wrote to the
Municipality on 16 April 2020, recording , among others, that Masana
supplied Q-Tique with fuel which in turn then supplied to the Municipality;
that Q-Tique owed Masana certain amounts, and that Masana would cease
supplying Q-Tique with fuel during the week commencing 20 April 2020,
unless Q-Tique had paid-up.
4
10 The defendants counterclaim on the further bases that Masana wrote to the
Municipality being aware that there was no privity between Masana and
the Municipality, in circumstances in which there was a bona fide dispute
between Masana and Q-Tique; that the Municipality would appoint the
plaintiff, as that would result in a seamless transition of a fuel servic e
provider.
11 The defendants pleaded that Masana could not invoke clause 13.6 of the
supply agreement and Masana’s conduct was unlawful , rendering
enforcement of clause 13.6 of the supply agreement contra bon os mores .
Masana’s writing of the letter resulted in the Municipality cancelling its
contract with Q-Tique and appointing Masana. Q-Tique say it suffered
damages in the amount of R 18 000 000,00, being a loss of R4,5 million per
year over the remaining 48 months of Q-Tique’s contract with the
Municipality.
12 Masana denied liability in its plea to the counterclaim. It denied
wrongdoing in sending the letter, and that it was acting as bonus pater
familias in sending the letter ; Masana denied that there was a bona fide
dispute between the parties , in that Mas ana terminated the supply
agreement in April 2020 where as the parties had been in discussions since
at least November 2018. Masana denied that Q-Tique suffered damages,
and that the defendants were warned in advance but failed to avoid and/or
mitigate their loss.
5
Evidence for the plaintiff
13 Mr Sithole is Masana’s managing director. He exercises overall executive
oversight over the Masana’s operations. The processing of customer
accounts fall within divisions that report to him. He confirmed the supply
agreement and the suretyship agreement. The supply agreement regulated
products supplied by Masana, the pricing, invoicing, and payment
arrangements.
14 Masana supplied Q-Tique under two separate accounts, namely the e -
Thekwini on -road and the Rand Water account. Q-Tique defaulted on its
payments on both accounts, with Masana issuing a demand on 14 April
2020. Masana also advised Q-Tique of Masana’s intention to suspend the
fuel supply in respect of the e -Thekwini account with effect from 17 April
2020; unless Q-Tique paid as set out in the demand or gave further security
in the form of a guarantee issued by a reputable financial institution.
15 Masana made a further demand on 13 May 2020 for payment in the amount
of R66, 730,013.05 in respect of the e -Thekwini on-road account. Q-Tique
did not pay, which led to Masana calling on a guarantee in the amount of
R40 000 000.00. Q-Tique’s remained indebted to Masana in the amount of
made up of R26, 730.013.05 in respect of the e -Thekwini account and the
amount of R1 679 330.57 in respect of the Rand Water account.
16 Mr Sithole explained Masana’s accounting and invoicing system. The
system recorded fuel supplied to customers. Fuel supplied and payments
received or credits passed are recorded continuously. Invoices are
6
generated periodically and on a consolidated basis, reflecting transactions
during the relevant billing cycle. Mr Sithole also explained that statements
of account are generated from Masana’s accounting system and such
statements demonstrate the defendants’ outstan ding indebtedness. Mr
Sithole also explained how the payments received from customers are
allocated, and how credit notes are passed to correct an account.
17 The supply agreement requires that disputes be raised as stipulated in that
agreement, by followin g the stip ulated timeframes. Customers remain
obliged to pay the undisputed portions notwithstanding the lodging of a
dispute. Q-Tique continued making payments notwithstanding the
allegations in the present dispute. The defendants rely on disputes that
arose largely after arrears had accumulated and after Masana took steps to
enforce its contractual rights.
18 The defendants, in support of the claim pertaining to late invoices, rely on
information prepared retrospectively and which is not based on Masana’s
accounting s ystem. The information did not record contemporaneous
objections raised by Q-Tique when the invoices were rendered.
19 Masana, from time to time, passed credit notes to Q-Tique. This was done
on a transaction -specific basis and following discussions between the
parties. The adjustments were treated as part of ordinary commercial
account management.
20 Mr Sithole denied that Masana agreed that invoices would only be rendered
within 60 days from the date of supply. Masana did not agree that payment
7
of in voices wou ld depend on Q-Tique’s downstream contractual
arrangements with the Municipality. The supply of fuel was based on the
supply agreement. Q-Tique was invoiced accordingly.
21 Mr Sithole denied that Masana entered a contract for the supply of diesel as
pleaded by the defendants. He continued that Masana, for example, never
altered its invoicing, pricing or payment arrangements under the supply
agreement. There were exchanges in April 2018 about the grade of diesel to
be supplied. Masana continued to supply Q-Tique with fuel as in the past. Q-
Tique paid for the fuel.
22 Mr Sithole contended that the disputes raised by the defendants such as in
relation to price discrepancies and the charging of amounts when the CTP
system was offline were raised opportunist ically. There was no instance
during which Q-Tique rejected an invoice and then invoked the dispute
mechanism in the supply agreement. Q-Tique would, from time to time,
raise queries such as relating to offline paymaster transactions and
reconciliation discrepancies.
23 It was only in early 2020, when Q-Tique had fallen into arrears and became
obliged to make payment or provide security, that the defendants raised
more complaints and asserted the existence of disputes. The invoices
referenced by the defendants were already due when the defendants raised
their complaints. Masana’s decision to suspend supply and to communicate
with the Municipality followed sustained non-payment.
8
24 Mr Sithole gave the following evidence in relation to the counterclaim. The
supply agreement entitled Masana to suspend supplying fuel should Q-
Tique fail to pay in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Masana
invoked clause 13.6, which entitled suspension of supply without prejudice
to Masana’s other rights in the agreement. The suspension of supply is not
depended on the resolution of disputes not raised in accordance with the
agreement.
25 Q-Tique was already materially in arrears when Masana engaged Q-Tique
on payment, security and enforcement. Q-Tique’s indebtedness to Masana
existed before any communication between Masana and the Municipality.
He pointed out that documents used in support of the counterclaim do not
reflect contemporaneous reconciliations showing that the losses are
directly linked to Masana’s conduct.
26 There was no malicious intent in Masana letter to the Municipality. Masana
was acting as a responsible corporate citizen because the Muni cipality
would be rendering emergency services at the time, which was in the
middle of the COVID -19 pandemic. Masana’s letter to the Municipality
followed Masana’s engagement with Q-Tique regarding payment and the
provision of security. The correspondence was part of Masana’s efforts to
manage its commercial exposure from the sustained non-payment.
27 Mr Sithole gave the following evi dence under cross -examination. He
notified the Municipality of Masana’s intended action because t here was
going to be a negative impact on the municipality’s provision of essential
services.
9
28 He agreed that Masana obliged Q-Tique to sign an acknowledgement of
debt pertaining to an invoice for the City of Tshwane. Masana insisted on
the acknowledgement before Masana could conclude an agreement with Q-
Tique for Q-Tique to supply the Municipality. He denied that the
Municipality paid Masana R7 million which sho uld instead have been paid
to Q-Tique. He said the Municipality never paid Masana money that was
due to Q-Tique.
29 He agreed that there could have been errors with the fuel master service ,
but that the parties would meet and Masana would pass a credit where
necessary. He d enied that Masana supplied the wrong grade of diesel. He
accepted that the tender specified t he supply of diesel grade 50 ppm , but
that the agreement between the parties mattered the most. That agreement
specified the supply of diesel at both grade 50 ppm and 500 ppm.
30 Masana informed Q-Tique on 14 April 2018 that Masana would suspend
supplying Q-Tique with fuel unle ss Q-Tique paid amounts that were
overdue. Masana informed the Municipality on 16 April 2018 that Masana
intended to stop supply ing Q-Tique with fuel during the week commencing
20 April 2018. The Municipality notified Q-Tique on 27 April 2018 that the
Municipality had cancelled its agreement with Q-Tique.
31 It was put to Mr Sithole that the Municipality reacted to Masana’s letter by
cancelling the Municipality’s contract with Q-Tique. Mr Sithole replied that
notification that Masana would cease supply was not done overnight and
that Masana acted after exhausting all options . Masana did not notify the
Municipality based on a contractua l obligation. It was based on a moral
10
duty, for the Municipality to become aware and to make contingency
arrangements. The Municipality, following cancellation of its contract with
Q-Tique, requested Masana to supply the Municipality with fuel whilst the
Municipality ran a process to secure an alternative supplier.
32 It was put to Mr Sithole that Masana d ad no right to interfere in Q-Tique’s
contract with the Municipality. Mr Modise stated that he agreed that
Masana has a right to choose what is due to it, and that the R26 million was
consumed.
33 Mr Sithole gave the following evidence on re -examination. The defendants
did not raise disputes within 14 days as stipulated in the agreement.
Reference in the minute of 5 July 2018 to the supply of diesel at grade 50
ppm was to an undertaking by Masana. Masana met this commitment.
Evidence for the defendants
34 Mr Modise confirmed his witness statement. He gave the following
evidence on behalf of the defendants. An oral agreement was reached in
April 2018 that Masana wo uld supply the Municipality only with diesel at
50ppm. There were three parties to the agreement, namely Q-Tique,
Masana (represented by Ryan Rajkishore and Mbuwa Ngomani) , and the
Municipality. He represented Q-Tique in the agreement.
35 Masana breached the agreement by allowing Q-Tique’s customers to use
diesel on grade 500ppm. That resulted in additional charges being added to
Q-Tique’s account and the Municipality refused to pay Q-Tique.
11
36 Mr Modise also contended that there were various accounting errors by
Masana. The errors included Masana raising additional charges. The
Municipality refused to pay invoices pertaining to additional charges.
Masana also raised late invoices which Q-Tique is not liable to pay.
37 Masana forced Q-Tique to sign an agreement in which a disputed amount
pertaining to supply to the City of Tshwane, was added to Q-Tique’s
account. It was unlawful for Masana to force Q-Tique to sign the agreement.
38 Mr Modise made the case on the counterclaim as follows. Masana wrote to
the Municipality knowing that there is no contractual privity between
Masana and the Municipality, which was a customer of Q-Tique. Masana
was aware at the time that there was a bona fide dispute on a considerable
portion of the amount claimed by Masana.
39 Masana, in writing to the Municipality, w as aware that Q-Tique used
Masana’s system for supplying the Municipality, and that the Municipality
would appoint Masana in the stead of Q-Tique to supply fuel, because of
continuity. That is because th ere would be a seamless transit ion of the
service provider for fuel.
40 Masana subsequently invoked clause 13.6 of the supply agreement and
stopped supplying Q-Tique with fuel. Masana could not invoke the clause
because there was a bona fide dispute between the parties as to Q-Tique’s
indebtedness to Masana. Mr Modise referred to various shortcomings on
the part of Masana, including raising additional charges that were not due
and the sending of late invoices, and pricing errors.
12
41 Masana stopped the supply of fuel drastically on short notic e and with an
ulterior purpose to induce the Municipality to terminate its contract with
Q-Tique, with a view to appointing Masana. Masana’s conduct was
unlawful, rendering clause 13.6 contra bon os mores given the
circumstances under which Masana invoked the clause.
42 Masana succeeded because the Municipality terminated its agreement with
Q-Tique and engaged Masana as a supplier . Q-Tique’s contract had 48
months to run when it was cancelled. This resulted in Q-Tique suffering a
loss in the amount of R18 000 000.00, because Q-Tique was earning an
average profit of R4 500 000.00 per year from its contract with the
Municipality. Mr Modise , as surety, was entitled to raise the same defences
as those raised by the first defendant.
43 Mr Modise gave the following evid ence on cross -examination. He received
the two demands by Masana. The amount in the demand has not been paid.
He signed a suretyship in favour of Masana and that he is bound by any
amount proven by Masana as owing by the Q-Tique.
44 He repeated that there was an oral agreement that was concluded in April
2018 that Masana will only supply diesel at grade 50 ppm. He agreed that
the supply agreement described “product” as diesel and petrol. There is no
mention 50 ppm or 500 ppm under ‘product’ and that both 50 ppm and 500
ppm were ‘products’.
45 The supply agreement has a non -variation clause. Any change must be in
writing. The supply agreement also states that parties are not bound by
13
tacit or implied terms. Any variation of the supply agreement had to be in
writing, and the agreement constituted the whole agreement. Any term that
is not recorded is invalid and that an unwritten term did not bind the
parties.
46 There is no written amendment for the supply only of diesel at grade 50
ppm. He confirmed that the Municipality addressed correspondence about
the grade of diesel to be supplied to Q-Tique, not to Masana. Ryan
Rajkishore of Masana replied to the Municipality, recording that the supply
agreement made no specific reference to diesel or to grade 50ppm. Mr
Modise ag reed that there was no agreement to supply diesel on grade 50
ppm when Ryan Rajkishore wrote the e-mail. Masana had not agreed on 19
April 2018 that it would only supply diesel on grade 50 ppm.
47 Mr Modise said the oral agreement was reached in July 2018. He agreed,
with reference to a minute of a meeting on scheduled for 25 July 2018 that
Q-Tique was not represented in that meeting. Mr Modise ultimately agreed
that there was no agreement in 2018 that Masana will only supply diesel on
grade 50 ppm.
48 Masana sa id it would supply diesel at grade 50 ppm from April 2019. Mr
Modise was referred to transaction schedules, and he confirmed that
Masana supplied diesel on grade 50 ppm after April 2019.
49 Mr Modise confirmed that Q-Tique continued trading with Masana, despi te
Q-Tique’s allegation that Masana breached the supply agreement. He
agreed that there is no record that Q-Tique objected to an invoice within 14
14
days as provided for in the supply agreement. He also agreed that the
supply agreement made no provision that invoices had to be submitted by a
particular date. The agreement between Q-Tique and the Municipality
specified that invoices had to be submitted by a particular date.
50 He was referred to annexures in support of a claim based on late invoices. It
was put t o him that the spreadsheet did not show an invoice date for each
transaction. He replied that he was running the company and did not deal
with invoices. The Municipality told him that the invoices were late. H e
agreed that the invoices were late in relatio n to the agreement between Q-
Tique and the Municipality. No dispute was raised in terms of clause 13.3 of
the supply agreement in relation to the invoices.
51 He agreed, with reference to the claim based on pricing errors, that the
document which the defendants relied upon does not show how any price
discrepancy is calculated. T he document does not show the contractual
price that should have been charged and what was charged. He agreed that
the document did not show a discrepancy. It only showed prices that w ere
charged. He confirmed that Q-Tique did not object within 14 days as
required by the supply agreement.
52 Mr Modise, in relation to the defendants’ claim that Q-Tique is not liable for
transactions when the system was offline , agreed that the supply
agreement between Masana and Q-Tique has no provision for Masana
being liable for those transactions. There is such an agreement between Q-
Tique and the Municipality: the Municipality did not pay for unauthorised
transactions when the system was offline.
15
53 The Municipality refused to pay invoices for transactions made when the
system was offline. Defendants did not raise the invoices with Masana to
say they were manual invoices or that the system was offline. He conceded
that Q-Tique did not object to the invoices during the 14-day period. The
supply agreement made no provision for system inaccuracies. The only
provision is that queries be raised within 14 days.
54 Mr Modise agreed that there was no documentation before the Court in
relation to the claim based on the supply of fuel to the City of Tshwane. He
said Masana forced Q-Tique to sign the acknowledgement, because that
was the only way for Q-Tique to succeed in its tender to supply the
Municipality. The Municipality preferred Masana’s fuelmaster system. Mr
Modise said Q-Tique signed under protest and that Masana is not allowed
to have included this charge. He had no choice not to sign the
acknowledgement of debt because he otherwise risked being sued for
damages by the Municipality. He agreed that no invoices fo r the claimed
amount are before the Court. He also agreed that the acknowledgement of
debt itself was not before the Court. He agreed that t here is no proof that
Masana added the amount in the acknowledgement of debt to Q-Tique’s
account. He ultimately agr eed that there was no evidence to show that he
was forced to sign the acknowledgement of debt.
55 Mr Modise agreed that clause 13.6 of the supply agreement entitles Masana
to suspend supply in the event of non-payment. Q-Tique was in arrears and
Masana was a cting in terms of the agreement by ceasing supply. The
16
Municipality terminated its contract with Q -Tique after Masana wrote to
the Municipality that Masana would cease supply to Q-Tique.
56 He contended, however, that Masana was aware that Q-Tique’s tender with
the Municipality was premised on Masana’s fuelmaster system and that Q-
Tique would be in breach of its agreement with the Municipality absent the
fuelmaster system; which would result in Q-Tique losing its contract and
suffering a loss and a potential claim for damages by the Municipality.
57 Mr Modise agreed that Masana had a right to suspend its supply to Q-Tique.
He took issue with Masana interfering with Q-Tique’s contract with the
Municipality. Masana put conditions to the Municipality for the supply and
the Municipality accepted those conditions , resulting in Q-Tique being
kicked out when the Municipality summarily terminated Q-Tique’s
contract. The Municipality did not terminate the contract for lack of
performance by Q-Tique, but because of interference by Masana.
Analysis
58 Masana and Q-Tique supplied the Municipality with fuel. This was in terms
of a tender for “Provision of on road and home bowser fuel, with
automotive fuelling solution for Thekwini Municipality for a period of
ninety-six (96) months .” Masana supplied the Municipality in terms of the
“home based” agreement, whereas the Q-Tique supplied in terms of the “on
road” contract.
59 The supply agreement between Masana and Q-Tique did not specify that
Masana had to supply diesel at grade 50 ppm. Mr Modise sought to rely on
17
a minute of a meeting held at the Municipality on 5 July 2018 as the basis
for an oral agreement in terms of which Masana would supply diesel at
grade 50 ppm . Q-Tique was not r epresented at this meeting according to
the minute . Rhyan Rajkishore of Masana wrote to Q-Tique on 19 April
2018, pointing out that the supply agreement did not prescribe the supply
of diesel at grade 50 ppm. There is no contemporaneous correspondence in
which Q-Tique disputed that the supply agreement did not stipulate the
supply of diesel on grade 50 ppm.
60 Mr Sithole explained that reference to April 2019 in the minute of the
meeting on 5 July 2018 was an undertaking by Masana because the
industry was transitioning the supply of diesel from grade 500ppm to 50
ppm. It was not a contractual undertaking by Masana. Mr Modise agreed
that Masana supplied diesel at 50 ppm grade from April 2019.
61 It bears pointing out that the agreement contended for by the defendants is
said to be a tripartite arrangement, with Ma sana, Q-Tique and the
Municipality as parties. There was no evidence as to who concluded the
agreement on behalf of the Municipality.
62 The contention that there was an oral agreement is belied by the fact that
Q-Tique never queried Masana supplying diesel at grade 500ppm. The
issue arose during litigation. I conclude that there was no oral agreement as
contended for by the defendants.
63 Q-Tique relied on certain terms being part of the supply agreement, and
invoked those terms for relief against Masana. I fin d that the terms
18
contended for were not part of the supply agreement. Mr Modise accepted
that the terms contended do not form part of the supply agreement,
because, among others, the supply agreement made no provision for
representations that are not recor ded in the agreement itself and that the
supply agreement expressly excludes reliance on, among others, tacit
terms.
64 Mr Modise accepted that he is bound as a surety and co -principal debtor
with Q-Tique. There is no merit to the pleaded defence that h e enjoys the
same defences as those raised by Q-Tique. I have found that those defences
lack merit, including as detailed below.
65 The defendants raised various issues in defending the claim by Masana.
These included Masana being said to have raised charges that s hould not
have been made ; the sending of invoices late ; Q-Tique incurring
expenditure when cars were allowed to be refuelled when the fuelmaster
system was offline, and various errors as contended for. All these defences
are resolved with reference to the supply agreement obliging Q-Tique to
raise a query within 14 days. This was never done. Q-Tique raised
objections to Masana’s demand for payment only after Masana terminated
the supply agreement.
66 Mr Modise, in making the case to substantiate the defendant s’
counterclaim, essentially contended that Masana interfered in the contract
between Q-Tique and the Municipality, leading to the Municipality
terminating the contract and engaging Masana as a supplier. Mr Modise
relied on Masana’s letter to the Municipal ity as a basis for this claim. Mr
19
Modise said in evidence that Masana put conditions on the Municipality,
which agreed to those conditions and then summarily terminated the
contract with Q-Tique.
67 The counterclaim is not substantiated. Masana, Q-Tique and the
Municipality have a long history of working together. It bears repeating
that Q-Tique and Masana bid to be suppliers to the Municipality. Thus Q-
Tique and Masana had a close working relationship, respectively, with the
Municipality. There was no eviden ce to support the claim that Masana put
conditions to the Municipality which made the Municipality terminat e its
contract with Q-Tique. Mr Sithole explained that Masana wrote to the
Municipality, acting as a responsible person. Masana was aware that the
Municipality is required, for example, to provide emergency services, for
which the Municipality would need fuel. There is nothing to suggest that
Masana was sinister in informing the Municipality of Masana’s intention to
stop supplying Q-Tique. This is more so because Masana did not
immediately write to the Municipality. Masana wrote to the Municipality
after extensive discussions between Masana and Q-Tique on invoices which
Q-Tique still had to pay. There is nothing to disturb Mr Sithole’s evidence
that Masana’s letter was to allow the Municipality to prepare for obtaining
fuel from another supplier , given that Masana were to stop supplying Q-
Tique.
68 The defendants did not seek to disprove the quantum of the claim by
Masana. The quantum is well motivated. Th e defendants did not dispute
any of the invoices that make -up the quantum. The defendants accepted
20
that t he supply agreement entitled Masana to stop supplying fuel where
invoices remained unpaid and, eventually, to terminate the supply
agreement.
69 Masana acted within the four corners of the supply agreement. It supplied
Q-Tique with fuel as detailed in the pleadings and invoiced Q-Tique
accordingly. Q-Tique did not query the invoices. Mr Modise bound himself
as a surety and co -principal debtor, together wi th Q-Tique. The defences
raised by the defendants lack merit, so too the defendants’ counterclaim.
70 I make the following order:
(1) The counterclaim by the defendants is dismissed with costs.
(2) The first and second defendants, jointly and severally, the one payin g to
be absolved, are ordered to pay the Plaintiff as follows:
a. Payment in the sum of R26, 730, 013.05 (twenty -six million seven
hundred thirty thousand, thirteen Rand and five cents).
b. Payment in the sum of R1 679 330.57 (one million six hundred and
seventy-nine thousand three hundred and thirty Rand, fifty -seven
cents).
c. Interest on each of the sums referred to above at the rate of 4%
above prime rate from 14 May 2020 to date of payment.
(3) Costs of suit, including costs of counsel on Scale B.
__________________
21
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Counsel for the plaintiff: K Magagula
Instructed by: Thomson Wilks Inc.
Appearance for the defendants A M Modise (in person)
Date heard: 10 – 11 March 2026
Date of judgement: 15 May 2026