About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZANCHC 48
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Bright Idea Projects 860 CC v Matsapa Trading 647 CC and Another (2522/2024) [2026] ZANCHC 48 (13 March 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE
DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case
No:
2522/2024
Reportable: YES /
NO
Circulate to Judges: YES
/ NO
Circulate to Regional
Magistrates: YES / NO
Circulate to
Magistrates: YES / NO
In
the matter between:
BRIGHT
IDEA PROJECTS 860 CC
Plaintiff
and
MATSAPA
TRADING 647 CC
First Defendant
ADRIANUS
PETRUS VAN DER COLFF
Second Defendant
Neutral
citation:
Bright Idea Projects 860 CC v
Matsapa Trading 647 CC and Another
(Case
No: 2522/2024)
Coram:
Coetzee AJ
Date
of Judgment:
13 March 2026
ORDER
1.
The Second Defendant’s exception is
dismissed.
2.
The Second Defendant shall pay the costs of
the exception.
JUDGMENT
[1]
On 19 September 2024 the Plaintiff issued a summons against the
First, alternatively
the Second Defendant, claiming the following
relief:
“
1.1
That the cash money in total R 4 083
848.60 be returned to Plaintiff by First and Second Defendants.
1.2.
In the alternative to prayer 1 above, that judgment be granted
against First Defendant, alternatively Second Defendant, for payment
to Plaintiff of the capital amount of 4 083 848.60
.
1.3
Interest on the above mentioned amount a tempore mora
.
1.4.
Costs of suit.”
[2]
First Defendant opposed the claim and filed a plea whilst the Second
Defendant opposed
the claim and filed an exception against
Plaintiff’s claim
on the basis that the claim is vague and
embarrassing and alternatively lacks the necessary averments to
sustain a cause of action
(my underlining) against the Second
Defendant.
[3]
This is an action in which the Plaintiff seeks the return of cash in
the amount of
R4 083 848.60, alternatively payment of that amount,
together with interest and costs.
[4]
The Plaintiff’s claim is founded on ownership of the aforesaid
cash and the alleged
possession thereof by the First Defendant,
alternatively the Second Defendant, following the termination of the
Second Defendant’s
employment with the Plaintiff.
[5]
On 01 March 2024, the Second Defendant was employed by the Plaintiff.
In the course
and scope of his employment, he held cash on
behalf of the Plaintiff in the total amount of R4 083 848.60.
[6]
The Plaintiff pleads and relies,
inter alia
, on a WhatsApp
message and screenshot sent by the Second Defendant on 01 March 2024
to a representative of the Plaintiff, reflecting
the aforesaid
amounts and confirming that the funds were to be remitted to the
Plaintiff.
[7]
On 06 March 2024, the Second Defendant informed the Plaintiff that he
had entered
into employment with the First Defendant and terminated
his employment with the Plaintiff.
[8]
The Plaintiff pleads that from 06 March 2024 the Second Defendant,
acting within the
course and scope of his employment with the First
Defendant, held the cash for and on behalf of the First Defendant,
alternatively
for his own benefit.
[9]
Despite demand, the cash has not been returned to the Plaintiff.
[10]
The issues for determination are:
(a)
Whether the Plaintiff has established
ownership of the cash amount of R4 083 848.60;
(b)
Whether the Defendants, or either of them,
are in possession of such cash;
(c)
In the alternative, whether the Plaintiff
is entitled to payment of the equivalent amount on the basis that the
cash was intentionally
disposed of or lost in circumstances giving
rise to liability.
[11]
An owner is entitled to reclaim its property from any person who
possesses it without lawful cause
(
rei
vindicatio
). To succeed, the
Plaintiff must plead:
(a)
ownership of the property; and
(b)
possession thereof by the Defendant at the time the action is
instituted.
[12]
Where the property is no longer in existence or in the possession of
the Defendant, and it is
alleged that the Defendant intentionally
disposed of or lost it, with knowledge of the Plaintiff’s
ownership, a delictual
or enrichment claim may arise entitling the
Plaintiff to the value thereof.
[13]
A person who holds property on behalf of another in a fiduciary or
employment capacity is under
a legal duty to account for and return
such property upon demand.
[14]
In the particulars of claim before Court, the Plaintiff has alleged
that the Second Defendant
held the cash in question on 01 March 2024
in his capacity as employee of the Plaintiff.
[15]
The documentary evidence, including the WhatsApp communication and
screenshot, corroborates the
existence of the quantum of the funds.
[16]
The Second Defendant’s resignation on 06 March 2024 and
subsequent employment with the
First Defendant, coupled with the
failure to return the funds, supports the inference that the funds
were retained either by the
Second Defendant personally, or by the
First Defendant through the agency of the Second Defendant.
[17]
No lawful basis has been advanced to justify the retention of the
Plaintiff’s funds. In
the circumstances, the Plaintiff
has alleged its ownership of the funds and the Defendants’
unlawful failure to restore same.
[18]
If the cash is no longer in the possession of the Defendants, the
evidence might support the
conclusion that such loss occurred
intentionally, and with knowledge of the Plaintiff’s ownership,
rendering the responsible
Defendant liable for payment of the
equivalent amount.
[19]
Second Defendant contends that no allegations are made as to the
following:
19.1
Why it is alleged that the Second Defendant was holding money on
behalf of the Plaintiff.
19.2
How the amount comprising the cash money is being quantified and why
such amounts would be due and
payable to the Plaintiff.
19.3
How the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the money which
, ex facie
the particulars of claim, belongs to the First Defendant as it
concerns its business operations.
19.4
How the cash money was allegedly lost (which allegation in itself is
vague and embarrassing).
[20]
Where an exception is based on vagueness and embarrassment, the
excipient must establish that:
20.1
The pleading is vague;
20.2
The vagueness causes embarrassment; and
20.3
Such embarrassment results in prejudice.
[1]
[21]
An exception is not directed at the evidential strength of a claim,
but at its legal sustainability. The question
before this Court
is therefore whether, accepting the pleaded facts as correct, the
particulars of claim disclose a recognisable
cause of action.
[2]
[22] Upon a
proper reading of the particulars of claim, the Plaintiff pleads:
·
The existence right, being ownership;
·
The obligations resting upon the Defendant
being the return thereof.
·
Conduct allegedly constituting breach or
wrongful conduct being the non-return of the money.
[23]
These allegations, if proved at trial, are capable of sustaining the
relief claimed. The Defendant’s
complaint is directed largely
at a perceived lack of detail rather than the absence of essential
averments.
[24] Our
Courts have repeatedly cautioned that exceptions should not be upheld
merely because a pleading could have
been more precisely formulated.
An exception is concerned with the legal validity of a claim
and not its ultimate prospects
of success.
[25] In the
present matter, the Defendant is able to meaningfully plead to the
allegations made. Any further particularity
required may
properly be obtained by way of a request for trial particulars and
does not justify the striking down of the pleading.
[26] The
alleged vagueness does not go to the root of the Plaintiff’s
cause of action, nor has material prejudice
been demonstrated.
[27]
The Defendant has failed to establish that the particulars of claim
disclose no cause of action or that they are vague
and embarrassing
to the extent required by law.
[28] The
exception accordingly falls to be dismissed.
ORDER
:
1.
THE SECOND DEFENDANT’S EXCEPTION
IS DISMISSED.
2.
THE SECOND DEFENDANT SHALL PAY THE COSTS
OF THE EXCEPTION.
COETZEE AJ
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION,
KIMBERLEY
For
the Plaintiff:
ADV
MP VAN DER MERWE SC
Instructed
By:
Tim
Du Toit & Co. Inc.
Johannesburg
c/o
Van De Wall Inc.
Kimberley
For
the Defendant:
ADV
D BLOCK
Instructed
By:
Van
Zyl Johnson Inc.
Johannesburg
c/o
Engelsman Magabane Inc.
Kimberley
[1]
Jowell
v Bramwell-Jones
(1998
(1) SA 836 (W))
[2]
Lewis
v Oneanate (Pty) Ltd and Another
[1992] ZASCA 174
;
1992
(4) SA 811
(A)