___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant bank launched an application against the first respondent as
principal debtor and the second respondent as surety.
2. The applicant sold a number of vehicles to the first respondent. It alleges that
the first respondent breached the agreements, the applicant cancelled the
agreements and now seeks return of the vehicles.
3. The answering affidavit of Mr Mogashoa, who admits signing as surety, is
concise indeed.
4. It is alleged, baldly, that the first respondent pays as per the agreements.
5. The replying affidavit alleges that after the application was launched a number
of payments were made which have the effect of settling some of the
accounts. As a result, less relief is now sought than was sought in the original
notice of motion. The return of fewer vehicles is now sought.
6. In my view, the vague denial of being in arrears when the application was
launched is contradicted by the proof of late payments after the application
was launched. There is no defence to the lesser relief now sought.
7. Mr Thobejane, for the respondents, admitted in argument that the answering
affidavit does not show that the arrears, relating to the vehicles now sought to
be returned, have been paid.
8. The relief now sought is only against the first respondent.
9. Mr Kloek for Absa handed up a draft order seeking the lesser relief.