Page 1 of 23
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case No: 588/2021
In the matter between:
SCHALK WILLEM V AN HEERDEN N.O.
(Cited in his capacity as a trustee of the
Langlaagte Trust IT 341/98) 1st Applicant
JOHANNES JACOB FREDERICK MARKRAM
t/a JJF MARKRAM BOERDERY 2nd Applicant
CHRIS STRAUSS & SEUNS CC
(Registration Number: 1996/045144/23 3rd Applicant
and
MCVIGAR SAND MINING (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number: 2016/19583707) 1st Respondent
RORISANG MCVIGAR LEBOKO
Page 2 of 23
(Identity Number: 8[...]) 2nd Respondent
MCVIGAR CONSTRUCTION AND TRADING CC
(Registration Number: 2006/073609/23) 3rd Respondent
FIRSTRAND BANK LTD t/a FIRST NATIONAL BANK
(Registration Number: 1929/001225/06) 4th Respondent
ABSA BANK LTD
(Registration Number: 1986/004794/06) 5th Respondent
Coram: Lever J
JUDGMENT
LEVER J:
1. This matter started as an urgent application brought under a Notice of
Motion in two parts , dated the 26 March 2021 . Part A was the urgent relief.
Part A froze certain identified sums of money held by the fourth and fifth
respondents in various bank accounts to the credit of the first, second and
third respondents. In respect of Part A, my brother Eillert AJ in an ex parte
hearing on the 26 March 2021, issued a rule nisi which effectively froze the
said sums of money in the hands of the fourth and fifth respondents pending
the outcome of Part B of the Notice of Motion. This rule nisi was extended
by agreement from time to time and presently remains in effect.
Page 3 of 23
2. Part B of the said Notice of Motion sought an order that: First respondent
pay first applicant an amount of R380 668,75 (three hundred and eighty
thousand six hundred and sixty eight Rand and seventy five cents) , interest
thereon from the date of issue of the application to date of final payment, and
first respondent pay first applicant’s costs on the scale as between attorney
and client ; Second respondent pay the third applicant the amount of
R82000,00 (eighty two thousand Rand), interest thereon from the date of
issue of the application to date of final payment, and second respondent pay
third applicant’s costs on the scale as between attorney and client; Third
respondent be ordered to pay the second applicant t he amount of
R114434,36 (one hundred and fourteen thousand four hundred and thirty
four Rand and thirty six cents), interest thereon from the date of issue of the
application to date of final payment, and that third respondent be ordered to
pay second applicant’s costs on a scale as between attorney and client.
3. The underlying facts that give rise to the above monetary claims are that a
large number of young calves were stolen from the farm “Sweet Home”.
These calves had not yet been branded, but they had the mark “LDJ”
tattooed in their right ears. In addition to the tattoo, each calf had what was
described as swallow tails cut into both ears. The breed of these calves was
described as a Charolais mixed breed. It was common cause that Mr and Mrs
Kriek owned these calves at the material time.
Page 4 of 23
4. It is contended by the applicants that one or other of the first, second, or third
respondents sold each of the applicants a number of these stolen calves. The
first and third respondents are corporate entities controlled by the second
respondent. The applicants became aware that the relevant calves had been
stolen, and the police were summoned, and Mr Kriek was informed .
Ultimately, Mr Kriek identified the relevant calves by virtue of their breed,
the tattoo marks in their right ears , and the swallow tail markings cut into
both ears of each calf. The said calves were returned to Mr Kriek.
5. In part B of the said application, the applicants seek to be reimbursed from
the first to third respondents as set out above. The applicants base their
respective claims for reimbursement on the implied warranty against
eviction that flowed from the contracts of purchase and sale between the
respective applicants and respective respondents.
6. Save for the interdict granted in Part A of the Notice of Motion, the
applicants seek no relief against the fourth and fifth respondents (the banks).
The banks do not actively oppose Part B of the said Notice of Motion.
7. The factual and legal defences raised by the first, second, and third
respondents will be dealt with later in this judgment. At this point, it is
Page 5 of 23
necessary to record that on 13 May 2022, Part B was referred for oral
evidence by my sister, Erasmus AJ.
8. This referral of Part B to oral evidence was not restricted to any issues and it
was also not restricted to any named witnesses. Although, procedures
relating to notice were set out if any witness called to give oral evidence was
not a deponent to an affidavit in the original application. Further, the
following Rules set out in the Uniform Rules of Court, rules 35, 36, 37 , and
37A, were specifically mentioned in the order referring the matter to oral
evidence and made applicable to the said referral to oral evidence. In respect
of costs, the said referral to oral evidence order provided that costs that were
not already determined shall be determined by the court hearing the oral
evidence.
9. The parties held a pre -trial conference by way of exchanging emails and
filing a minute duly signed by the legal representative of the respective
parties. In the said pre -trial minute , the parties recorded that the following
issues were not in dispute:
“21.1 That 1st respondent sold 16 calves to 1st applicant on 6 March 2021
for R111 500,00;
21.2 That 1st respondent sold 29 calves to 1st applicant on 8 March 2021
for R192 700.00;
21.3 That 1st respondent sold 23 calves to 1st applicant on 15 March
2021 for R181 000,00;
Page 6 of 23
21.4 That 3rd respondent sold 14 calves to 2nd applicant on 24 February
2021 for R114 434,36;
21.5 That second respondent sold 13 calves to 3rd applicant for
R82 000,00;
21.6 That the applicants have paid for all calves so purchased from the
respondent (sic);
21.7 All calves so sold by respondents to applicants were attached by
the SAPS, not an issue in the papers;
21.8 The terms of the various sale agreement (sic) save where denied
and listed under paragraph 22 below;
21.9 Applicants were evicted from possession of the calves so
purchased from the respondents.”1
10. The issues in dispute were listed in the said pre-trial minute as follows:
“22.1 That 53 of the calves seized from 1 st applicant by the SAPS were
subject to the sale agreements with 1st respondent;
22.2 Only one calf sold by 1 st respondent to 1st applicant during the sale
of the 6th March 2021 was seized;
22.3 All other calves sold by 1 st respondent to 1 st applicant during the 8
and 15 March 2021 sale were seized by the SAPS;
22.4 The date on which 2 nd respondent sold the 13 calves to 3 rd
applicant;
22.5 Whether respondents could legally sell the calves to applicants;
22.6 Whether respondents, or either one or more of them were the
lawful owners of the calves so sold by them to the applicants;
22.7 That all calves so seized were marked with the tattoo mark “LDJ”
in their ears and were recently marked.”2
11. In respect of the duty to begin and the onus of proof, the said pre-trial minute
records that the parties agreed that:
1 This pre-trial minute appears at pages 490 through 502 of volume 4 of the record.
2 As in footnote 1 above.
Page 7 of 23
“9.1 The applicants bear the duty to begin and have the onus of proof in
respect of their claims.
9.2 The respondents bear the onus of proof and duty to begin in respect
of their claims of ownership.”
12. It is tempting to look no further than 21.7 and 21.9 of the pre -trial minute
quoted above and conclude that this settles one of the major disputes
between the parties. However, if one reads paragraph 21 of the said minute
together with paragraph 22 thereof, there is a certain ambiguity as to what is
actually being admitted and what is disputed. In these circumstances, it is
both prudent and necessary to examine the evidence adduced by the
respective parties on this question.
13. It is convenient at this stage to briefly set out the defence invoked by the
second respondent personally and his two associated corporate entities, being
the first and the third respondents respectively. They deny the contention that
the cattle they admittedly sold to the applicants were the stolen cattle already
referred to above. On this first aspect, the first, second, and third respondents
seek to rely on the delay between the earlier sales to the applicants and the
date when the theft of the cattle wa s first noted and reported. The said
respondents seek to argue that the thefts occurred after at least the earliest
transactions. They want this court to conclude from that that the cattle sold in
their respective transactions did not involve the relevant stolen cattle. They
Page 8 of 23
also seek to invoke the in pari delicto rule, in that they contend that the
legislation that governs trading in livestock imposes positive obligations on
the applicants as purchasers. The first to the third respondents then argue that
none of the applicants complied with these positive obligations and thereby
make themselves guilty of a criminal offence.
14. In short, then, the nub of the dispute is whether the applicants have, on the
evidence placed before this court, established on a balance of probabilities
that the cattle respectively sold to them by the first, second, and third
respondents involved the relevant stolen cattle. If the applicants have
established this nexus between the stolen cattle and the cattle sold to them by
the respective respondents, then they will be entitled to the confirmation of
the rule nisi and the relief that they seek under Part B of the relevant Notice
of Motion. If the applicants are unable to establish this nexus, then the first,
second, and third respondents would be entitled to the discharge of the rule
nisi and the dismissal of Part B of the present application.
15. At this stage, it is also necessary to point out that the first, second, and third
respondents filed an answering affidavit in the application. They then sought
to file two further supplementary affidavits. The applicants opposed the
filing of further supplementary affidavits, and the said respondents took
these applications no further. Accordingly, there is only one answering
affidavit before this court. The two putative supplementary answering
Page 9 of 23
affidavits were not admitted to the record. Mr Jacobs, who appeared for the
respondents in this matter sought to refer the court to some of the evidence
contained in such supplementary affidavits. In the circumstances, he was not
allowed to do so.
16. It is convenient to turn to the in pari delicto rule invoked by Mr Jacobs on
behalf of the respondents. Mr Sander who appeared for the applicants herein
objected to the in pari delicto rule being raised on the basis that there was
nothing in the papers that foreshadowed it or raised it in a manner that would
have allowed the applicants to deal with it appropriately. In fact Mr Sander
went further and pointed out that this rule was raised for the first time in oral
argument after oral evidence that spanned a period of two years and several
court sittings. In Mr Sander’s submission this was unduly prejudicial to the
applicants and ought not to be allowed. In my view Mr Sander is correct and
it cannot be raised in this way.
17. Turning now to the evidence led in this matter. The applicants called seven
witnesses, namely: Mr Fanie Koper; Mr Modisapudi; Mr Henk Schalk de
Jager; Mr Nicolaas Jacob Kriek; Mr Chris Strauss; Mr Schalk van Heerden;
and Mr Jacob Frederick Markram. All three respondents relied on the
evidence of the second respondent Mr Rorisang McVigar Leboko.
Page 10 of 23
18. Mr Koper’s evidence was to the effect that he works under Mr Markram and
that he buys cattle on Mr Markram’s behalf. Mr Koper’s evidence establishes
the nexus between the cattle purchased from Mr Leboko and those which
were eventually seized by the SAPS and returned to the owner, Mr Kriek.
Material aspects of his evidence were not disputed, and his evidence is, to
that extent, uncontested. Mr Koper’s evidence established that Mr Leboko
sold Charolais cross cattle with a swallow tail cut into each ear. This
corresponded with the cattle that were eventually seized by the SAPS and
returned to Mr Kriek.
19. Mr Modisapudi gave evidence to the effect that he was employed on the
farm “Sweet Home” at the time that Mr Kriek’s cattle were stolen from the
said farm. He worked with the farm manager, Mr De Jager. His evidence
established the usual practice of counting the cattle on the farm “Sweet
Home”. The counting of the cattle was done by the farm manager, not by
him. He could not provide a date when the cattle were last counted before
the relevant theft. However, it was apparent from his evidence that the cattle
were not counted in accordance with the usual practice on the farm “Sweet
Home”. His evidence also establishes the nexus between the stolen cattle and
those returned to the farm “Sweet Home.” His evidence also explains how
the relevant cattle were stolen without it being noticed until 15 March 2021.
Mr Modisapudi was quite put out by the fact that he was considered a
suspect in the theft, and he evidently wanted to clear his name.
Page 11 of 23
20. Mr Henk Schalk de Jager gave evidence to the effect that he was a manager
on the farm “Sweet Home”. His evidence was that the cattle on the farm
“Sweet Home” were not counted between the dates 24 February 2021 and 14
March 2021. Prior to the theft coming to light on 15 March 2021, the cattle
were last counted on the farm “Sweet Home” on 23 February 2021, when the
cattle were vaccinated/dosed. Mr De Jager produced his pocketbook, which
was written in his own shorthand contemporaneously with the relevant
events; despite being in his own shorthand, the said pocketbook corroborated
his version of the events.
21. Mr De Jager’s evidence established the nexus between the cattle stolen from
the farm “Sweet Home” and those cattle that were eventually returned. His
evidence on this aspect was not contested. Mr De Jager’s evidence also
established how the theft came to light. On this aspect, his evidence and that
of Mr Modisapudi corroborated each other.
22. Mr De Jager’s evidence was to the effect that Mr Kriek’s calves had the
letters “LDJ” tattooed in their right ears. That the relevant calves had
‘swallow tails’ cut into both ears. That each calf also had an ear tag attached
to its left ear.
Page 12 of 23
23. Mr De Jager was confronted with the affidavit he gave to the SAPS at the
time of the theft. He confirmed his signature but testified that at the time he
signed such affidavit, he had not read it and that it was not read back to him.
Also, at that time, he testified that he was preoccupied with searching the
different camps on the farm for the missing cattle.
24. Overall, Mr De Jager made a favourable impression as a witness. He
answered questions frankly and directly. He did not give the impression of
trying to embellish his evidence, nor did he try to mislead the court.
25. Then the owner of the affected cattle Mr Nicolaas Jacob Kriek, gave
evidence. Due to circumstances that could not be avoided at the time, his
evidence was split into two parts , with a period of approximately 8 months
between each session in which he gave evidence.
26. Mr Kriek’s evidence confirmed that the cattle stolen from the farm “Sweet
Home” and subsequently identified in the presence of the SAPS and returned
to the farm “Sweet Home” belonged jointly to him and his wife. This
corroborated the evidence of Mr Modisapudi and the evidence of Mr De
Jager.
27. Mr Kriek’s evidence confirmed the manner in which the relevant calves were
marked and identified. On Mr Kriek’s evidence, there was blood on the ears
Page 13 of 23
of the cattle when he went to identify his cattle in the presence of members
of the SAPS. On his evidence, he concluded that the ear tags of his calves
had been roughly removed, causing the bleeding he observed. None of the
applicants’ other witnesses testified to their being blood on the ears of the
relevant calves.
28. Mr Kriek also testified that the manager, Mr De Jager, did not comply with
the usual practice for counting the cattle on the farm “Sweet Home” prior to
the theft coming to light. In terms of the usual practice, the cattle had to be
counted on the preceding Friday, and the totals relayed to him on the
following Monday. He could not recall prior to the theft coming to light
when Mr De Jager last reported on a count of the cattle concerned.
29. Mr Kriek conceded that he was more dedicated to his tax practice than his
farming endeavours. On Mr Kriek’s evidence, he last visited the farm on
Saturday, 28 February 2021 , for a brief period. He did not attempt to count
the cattle on this occasion as he could not do it alone. On this occasion, when
he visited the farm “Sweet Home,” he also did not notice anything amiss, as
the cattle are kept in two separate camps on the farm. At that time, he also
explained that he was inundated with his clients' provisi onal tax and V AT
returns.
Page 14 of 23
30. Then Mr Chris Strauss gave evidence on behalf of the third applicant. Mr
Strauss testified that he prepared the invoice, being annexure “FA14” to the
founding affidavit, which he presented to Mr Leboko to sign. The evidence
of Mr Strauss was to the effect that the thirteen cattle he purchased from Mr
Leboko were mixed -breed Charolais calves. That such calves also had
swallowtails cut into their ears. This aspect of Mr Strauss’ evidence was
undisputed. This established the nexus between the cattle stolen fro m the
farm “Sweet Home” and the cattle purchased from Mr Leboko. Mr Strauss
testified that he asked Mr Leboko if he was the owner of the cattle he was
selling, and Mr Strauss accepted Mr Leboko's assurance that he was the
owner of the cattle he was selling to Mr Strauss. On the strength of that
assurance, Mr Strauss did not look for any further identifying marks on the
relevant calves. Mr Strauss testified that the information set out on the
invoice “FA14” was provided to him by Mr Leboko. This aspect of his
evidence was not disputed and must be accepted. It was put to Mr Strauss
that Mr Leboko would deny signing the said “FA14”.
31. Then Mr Schalk van Heerden gave evidence on behalf of the first applicant.
His evidence was to the effect that invoices were prepared for the seller, but
that this was done by his wife. However, his evidence that the invoice was
prepared based on information provided by Mr Leboko went uncontested.
Mr Van Heerden’s evidence established the nexus between the calves he
Page 15 of 23
bought from Mr Leboko and the ones that were subsequently seized at his
farm, as well as those that he sold on to Mr Markram and Karan Beef. His
evidence that the cattle he bought from Mr Leboko had ‘swallow tails’ cut
into both ears on each calf went uncontested and is direct evidence of the
nexus referred to above. The breed of the calves concerned, being Charolais
cross calves, provided further evidence of this nexus. This was the case in
respect of all three sales where the first applicant bought cattle from or
through Mr Leboko.
32. Mr Van Heerden came across an article circulated on WhatsApp relating to
Mr Kriek's stolen calves. His evidence in this regard was challenged.
However, Mr Van Heerden contacted Mr Markram, and Mr Markram
contacted the police as a result of the information received from Mr Van
Heerden. This is what one would expect from an honest person who
subsequently learns that he may have been tricked into buying stolen
property.
33. Mr Van Heerden’s evidence that he sold calves on to Mr Markram and Karan
Beef was undisputed. This explains why some of the stolen cattle were
retrieved from Mr Markram’s farm and the premises of Karan Beef.
34. Mr Van Heerden was taken in by the regard he had for Mr Leboko. He
accepted Mr Leboko’s word that Mr Leboko was the owner of the calves
Page 16 of 23
concerned. Mr Leboko did not provide his stock card for verification of the
ownership of the calves concerned.
35. When Mr Leboko delivered the calves concerned to him, there was no blood
on the ears of the respective calves.
36. Finally, for the applicants, Mr Jacob Frederick Markram gave evidence for
the second applicant. Mr Markram’s evidence confirmed the evidence of Mr
Koper that Mr Koper purchased cattle on behalf of Mr Markram.
37. Mr Markram’s evidence was to the effect that he inspected the cattle that
evening for quality after Mr Koper had purchased the said cattle from Mr
Leboko. He confirmed that the cattle purchased by Mr Koper were Charolais
cross breeds. That each of the calves concerned had ‘Swallow Tails’ cut into
each of their ears. Mr Koper provided Mr Markram with details of the
number of calves purchased, the weight of the calves and the banking details
of the seller.
38. The evidence of Mr Markram aside from establishing the breed and
markings cut into the ears of the respective calves provided further evidence
of the nexus between the calves stolen from the farm “Sweet Home” and the
calves sold to Mr Markram through Mr Koper in that the calves purchased
from each seller were kept in separate corrals or pens until Mr Markram had
Page 17 of 23
a chance to inspect them for quality. Only twenty cattle were purchased by
Mr Koper for Mr Markram on the relevant day. There was only one group of
fourteen cattle bought on that day, being the fourteen Charolais cross breeds
bought from Mr Leboko. They were kept together in a separate pen/corral
from the other cattle purchased on that day. Mr Markram found these calves
to have ‘Swallow Tails’ cut into their ears. The breed, markings and
circumstances set out herein is persuasive evidence of the nexus between the
cattle stolen from Mr Kriek and those sold by Mr Leboko to Mr Markram
through Mr Koper.
39. Mr Markram testified that he was phoned by Mr Van Heerden and informed
that the calves he had bought from Mr Van Heerden, which originated from
Mr Leboko, appeared to be the calves that were stolen and referred to in the
relevant article. Mr Markram testified that he phoned the police and asked
them to come the next day, as it was already dark at that time.
40. Mr Markram's evidence as to what transpired at his farm and the premises of
Karan Beef was not contested.
41. During cross -examination, Mr Markram confirmed that he inspected the
calves concerned and found that there was no brand mark on such calves. He
did not check whether the said calves were tattooed. This evidence was also
undisputed and is relevant insofar as Mr Leboko testified that the cattle he
Page 18 of 23
sold to the applicants bore his brand “RRL” on their legs. This was not put to
Mr Markram or any of the other witnesses for the applicants.
42. It was put to Mr Markram that he refused to take a V AT invoice from Mr
Leboko because he did not want to have to pay V AT. Mr Markram denied
such contention and pointed out that when Mr Leboko delivered the calves
concerned to his property, he was not present. That Mr Koper handled the
transaction and that he was not there to refuse an invoice from Mr Leboko.
43. This concluded the evidence tendered on behalf of the applicants. Then Mr
Leboko gave evidence on behalf of the respondents.
44. Mr Leboko’s testimony had several unsatisfactory features to it. Firstly, Mr
Leboko’s evidence was not preceded by his version being put to the
applicant’s witnesses. Where such version would be relevant to the evidence
of that specific witness. An example of this is the contention that Mr Strauss
offered a cash bribe to the SAPS so that he would apparently not be detained.
There are several further examples of this conduct, including inter alia that
the cattle sold to Mr Van Heerden bore Mr Leboko’s registered brand mark
“RRL” on their le gs. Also, Mr Leboko testified that he had a transportation
book which he used in the transactions relating to the applicants. Not only
was the existence of this transportation book not raised with any of the
applicants’ witnesses, but it was also not discovered, nor was it produced in
Page 19 of 23
circumstances where, if the sale of the calves was a legitimate transaction,
the transportation book would have been important evidence to substantiate
his version. The absence of the transportation book in these circumstances
raises several questions regarding the evidence of Mr Leboko.
45. In his evidence in chief Mr Leboko testified that he had acquired an App on
his phone that allowed him to issue invoices for the sale of cattle. This was
also never put to any of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the
applicants.
46. Mr Leboko also did not discover or produce the invoices he alleges he
produced, and that on his evidence the applicants refused to accept. In
circumstances where, if it could be shown that such invoices existed, it
would have corroborated his evidence. Instead, this court is left with the
question as to why such invoices were never discovered or produced.
47. In cross -examination, Mr Leboko testified for the first time that he used a
‘fishtail’ cut into the ears of his calves, which, according to him, is similar to
the ‘swallow tail’. This was also never put to any of the applicants’
witnesses. It smacks of Mr Leboko tailoring his evidence as the case against
him and the other respondents developed over a period of some two years, in
which evidence in this matter was led.
Page 20 of 23
48. Mr Leboko's proffered explanation as to why his legal representative did not
raise these, and other issues with the applicants’ witnesses, is simply
improbable and untenable. Mr Leboko testified that he provided his legal
representatives with all of this information, but that they informed him that it
was not necessary to put everything in the answering affidavit, as he would
get his day in court to tell his side of the story. Having regard to the fact that
when the answering affidavit was drawn up and sett led, the matter was still
an opposed motion. The referral to oral evidence only occurred much later.
This explanation is so inherently improbable and so blatantly self -serving
that it can safely be disregarded.
49. Above is a summary of the evidence adduced in this matter. It is clear from
such evidence that Mr Kriek’s claim to the relevant calves was unassailable.
It is implied in the contract of sale between the individual applicants and the
respective respondents that the sellers would deliver to the applicants vacant
possession, together with a warranty against eviction.
50. It is also clear from the evidence adduced before this court that the
applicants have established on a balance of probabilities that there is a nexus
between the calves stolen from the farm “Sweet Home” and those sold by
the respective respondents to the respective applicants.
Page 21 of 23
51. The version set up by Mr Leboko is so improbable, coupled with the fact that
his evidence was unsatisfactory to the extent set out above, that his version
stands to be rejected.
52. In these circumstances, I find that the applicants have established their case
on a balance of probabilities. In these circumstances, the applicants are
entitled to the confirmation of the rule nisi issued out of this court on 26
March 2021. They are further entitled to the relief sought in Part B of the
Notice of Motion dated 26 March 2021.
53. Accordingly, that leaves the issue of costs to be considered. The applicant
has asked for costs on a punitive attorney and client scale. At this point, I am
not inclined to grant costs against the respondents on a punitive attorney and
client scale. This is a case where costs should follow the result. I believe it
would be appropriate having regard to the circumstances, to award the
applicants costs on scale “B”.
Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. That t he rule nisi issued out of this court on 26 March 2021 be and is
hereby confirmed.
Page 22 of 23
2. That the first respondent is ordered to pay the first applicant R380 668.75
(three hundred and eighty thousand six hundred and sixty eight rand and
seventy-five cents).
3. That the first respondent pay interest on the aforesaid amount of
R380668.75 (three hundred and eighty thousand six hundred and sixty
eight rand and seventy -five cents) from the date of issuing this
application to date of final payment, a tempore morae at the rate of 7%
per annum.
4. That first respondent is to pay the costs of the first applicant on a party -
and-party basis on scale “B”.
5. That second respondent is ordered to pay the third applicant an amount of
R82000.00 (eighty-two thousand rand).
6. That second respondent is ordered to pay interest on the aforesaid amount
of R82000.00 (eighty -two thousand rand) from the date of issuing this
application to date of final payment a tempore morae at the rate of 7%
per annum.
7. That second respondent is to pay the costs of the third applicant on a
party-and-party basis on scale “B”.
8. The third respondent is ordered to pay the second applicant the amount of
R114434.36 (One hundred and fourteen thousand four hundred and thirty
four rand and thirty-six cents).
Page 23 of 23
9. That third respondent pay interest on the aforesaid amount of R114434.36
(One hundred and fourteen thousand four hundred and thirty -four rand
and thirty-six cents) from date of issuing this application to date of final
payment, a tempore morae at a rate of 7% per annum.
10. That third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the second applicant
on a party-and-party basis on scale “B”.
________________
L.G. LEVER
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
Appearances
For the applicant: Adv Sander
Instructed by: Van De Wall Inc.
For the respondent: Adv Jacobs
Instructed by: Juries Attorneys
Date Heard: 27 February 2025
Delivery Date: 19 June 2026