About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 89
|
|
Damal Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Transaction Capital Payment Solutions (Pty) Ltd (2020/17363) [2023] ZAGPJHC 89 (3 February 2023)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no.
: 2020/17363
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
03/02/2023
In
the matter between:
DAMAL
TRADING (PTY) LTD
1
ST
APPLICANT
LIFEZONE
TRADING (PTY)
LTD
2
ND
APPLICANT
LOAN
PICKER SA (PTY)
LTD
3
RD
APPLICANT
LOAN
SCOUT SA (PTY)
LTD
4
TH
APPLICANT
LOAN
HUB SA (PTY)
LTD
5
TH
APPLICANT
LOAN
ZONE SA (PTY)
LTD
6
TH
APPLICANT
LOAN
CHOICE SA (PTY)
LTD
7
TH
APPLICANT
LOAN
MATCH SA (PTY)
LTD
8
TH
APPLICANT
LOAN
QUEST SA (PTY)
LTD
9
TH
APPLICANT
CAPITAL
LIFESTYLE SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD
10
TH
APPLICANT
and
TRANSACTION
CAPITAL PAYMENT SOLUTIONS
RESPONDENT
(PTY)
LTD
Coram:
Dlamini J
Date
of Request for reasons:
18 October
2022
Date
of delivery of reasons:
03 February 2023
These
reasons are deemed to have been delivered electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and
same
shall be uploaded onto the caselines system.
JUDGMENT
DLAMINI
J
[1]
On 5 September 2022, I made the draft order
marked X an order of the court. The following are my reasons for
making that order.
[2]
This is an application for a money judgment
wherein the applicants claimed that the respondent is ordered to pay
the applicants
the total sum of R1 849 104 59.
[3]
The facts leading to the dispute in this
matter are largely common cause.
[4]
The applicants had entered into several
service agreements with the respondent, in terms of which the
respondent provided non-authenticated
early debit order collection
services to applicants, referred to as NAEDO services.
[5]
The respondent accounted to the applicants
through monthly statements, reflecting the sums collected on behalf
of each applicant
and, based on this collection, the respondent would
after settling any dispute between the parties, pay to the applicants
the upfront
amount and, after 40 days, the retained amount.
[6]
On 28 June 2019, the respondent wrote to
the applicants informing them that it had terminated the agreement
between the parties
effective 27 July 2019.
[7]
On 7 November 2019, the respondent advised
the applicants that the respondent had decided to retain all amounts
collected on behalf
of the applicants until the conclusion of the
anticipated class action.
[8]
On 30 June 2020, the applicant's attorneys
wrote to the respondent’s attorneys demanding payment of the
sums due to the applicants.
When no response was forthcoming, the
applicants launched this application.
[9]
The high watermark of the respondent’s
case is found in the respondent supplementary affidavit. The
respondent submits that
there is a pending court action in the
Western Cape High Court, wherein some of the applicants in this
present matter, have been
cited therein as respondents. The
respondent avers that it appears that the applicant's companies are
not registered credit providers.
Accordingly, the respondents avers
that there is a substantial risk that any customer or person in the
class action may claim from
the respondent the money presently held
by the respondent.
[10]
In my view, the respondent's submissions in
this regard are baseless and fall to be dismissed. The respondent's
submissions are
nothing more than a deliberate attempt by the
respondent to avoid the payment of the applicant's money.There is no
justification
for this assertion, this is so because in the
respondent's admission, in terms of the various agreements concluded
between the
parties, the applicants have indemnified the respondent
and held the respondent harmless against all and any claims or action
of
whatsoever nature which may be instituted against the respondent
in respect of loss and or damages which may be incurred by the
applicants or the customers of the applicants and or services
providers of the applicants arising out of the respondent's service.
This in my view, puts an end to the respondent's defense.
[11]
In light of all the above circumstances, it
is my considered view that the applicants have established their case
and are entitled
to the amounts owed and due to them by the
respondent.
ORDER
1.
The order marked “X” that I
signed on 5 September 2022 is made an order of this Court.
DLAMINI
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date
of request for reasons:
18 October 2022
Delivered:
03 February 2023
For
the Applicant:
Adv PS Bothma
pbothma@capebar.co.za
For
the Respondent
:
Craig Cremen
craigcremen@gmail.com