notice of motion in the application for leave to appeal, which is as per the
original notice of motion in the main application.
2. Absa sold a number of vehicles to Bahwiti. Bahwiti defaulted and Absa
launched an application for the return of certain vehicles. The short, bald
answering affidavit alleged that payments were up to date. The replying
affidavit showed that the indebtedness in respect of some vehicles had been
cleared but, relating to other vehicles, it had not.
3. At the start of the main hearing, counsel for Absa handed up a draft order at
my request. This was so that I could see precisely which vehicles Absa
wanted back. Absa, at the hearing, wanted back only some of the vehicles for
which it had originally sued in the notice of motion.
4. Mr Thobejane, for Bahwiti, aware of precisely which vehicles Absa wanted
back when he commenced argument in the main application, was given a full
opportunity to argue his case. During argument, Mr Thobejane correctly
conceded that there were arrears owing in respect of the vehicles sought back
by Absa.
5. The grounds for leave to appeal, like the defence to the main application, are
difficult to follow. The gist of the defence to the claims, and of this application
for leave to appeal, is that because payments in respect of some vehicles
were up to date, Absa could not claim the return of the vehicles in respect of
which there were admitted arrears. This argument holds no water.
6. Shortly after argument in the main application, I handed down judgment and
the typed, signed judgment was emailed by my clerk to the attorneys for both
sides.
7. The cited respondents now seek leave to appeal.
Appearances:
ABSA Adv JW Kloek
Instructed by: Marianne Pretorius
marrianne@mpattorney.co.za
Bhawiti and Mr Mogashoa Mr LE Thobejane
Instructed by: Botha Massyn and Thobejane
Leruma@bothamassyn.co.za