About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 1000
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Ramaboea v Selota (2023-049221) [2026] ZAGPPHC 1000 (28 August 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO.:
2023-049221
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
In
the matter between:
LEHODI
ANTHONY
RAMABOEA
Applicant
and
MAMOLATELO
ALFRED SELOTA
Respondent/Defendant
Delivered
:
This judgment was prepared and authored
by the Judge whose name is reflected herein and is handed down
electronically by circulation
to the parties’ legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file
of this matter on CaseLines. The
date and time for hand-down is
deemed to be 10:00 on 28 August 2026.
JUDGMENT
SUMMARY
:
Summary
Judgment – bona fide defence
INTRODUCTION
:
[1]
Before me is an application for summary judgment in respect of
professional
services rendered by an advocate to an attorney. I
have to decide whether Defendant has disclosed a
bona fide
defence.
THE PLEADINGS
:
[2]
It is common cause that Defendant briefed Plaintiff from time to time
and that Plaintiff rendered invoices for the work performed by him.
[3]
Defendant raised the following “defences” in his Plea
dated
1 September 2023:
3.1
Plaintiff would only send an invoice once a matter is settled with
costs.
3.2
Such invoice would then form part of the party and party bill during
taxation.
3.3
Plaintiff would only be entitled to the sum allowed by the Taxing
Master (presumably
in respect of counsel’s fees).
3.4
In response to the monthly statement which Plaintiff annexed to the
Summons,
Defendant averred that he “
made upfront payment to
Plaintiff which is not reflected anywhere in
(the statement)”
.
3.5
In response to the total outstanding indebtedness relied upon,
Defendant states
that Plaintiff’s representative, “Auxcon”
(an entity which does collections on behalf of advocates) never
reverted
to discuss amounts allowed by the Taxing Master in each
instance.
OPPOSING AFFIDAVIT
:
[4]
In his affidavit opposing summary judgment (dated 16 July 2024),
Defendant
raised the following defences:
4.1
Plaintiff ought to have proved his invoices with Defendant’s
appointed
curator.
4.2
Prescription.
4.3
The curator ought to have been joined (as a defendant).
[5]
Defendant’s version of the oral agreement with Plaintiff now
entailed
that payment would be effected within a reasonable time.
He explicitly stated that “
Defendant did not enter into
Contingency Fee Agreement with the Plaintiff…”
.
[6]
Under the heading “
Bona Fide
Defence”
,
he
alleges that he had paid a deposit of R36 200.00 for certain matters
upon Plaintiff’s request.
HEADS OF ARGUMENT
:
[7]
When the matter was called on Tuesday, 18 August 2026, no Heads of
Argument
had been uploaded on CaseLines by Defendant. Defendant
appeared in person and handed up his heads. In order to
finalise
the matter, I allowed it to stand down for argument until 20
August 2026 when Adv Rangululu appeared on Defendant’s behalf.
[8]
The following was raised in Respondent’s heads:
8.1
Technical defences such as non-compliance with Rule 18(6).
8.2
Prescription.
8.3
That Plaintiff ought to have approached the
curator bonis
.
8.4
Also that “
all the required money due to the Applicant has
been paid”
.
RELEVANT THRESHOLD
:
[9]
The threshold which a defendant has to meet to evade summary judgment
is trite. In a nutshell:
9.1
A defendant’s affidavit should set out material facts and
particulars.
9.2
Although the defence need not be formulated with the precision that
would be
required for a plea, a defendant must provide sufficient
clarity to enable the court to ascertain whether he has deposed to a
defence
which, if proved at the trial, would constitute a good
defence to the action.
9.3
The defendant must do so with reference to the plea that was
delivered.
9.4
The defence must not be averred in a manner which appears in all the
circumstances
to be needlessly bald, vague or sketchy.
[1]
DEFENDANT’S DEFENCES AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH THEY WERE RAISED
:
[10]
I shall start off with the defences raised in the Plea, since it is
there where Defendant
was supposed to lay the basis for establishing
a
bona fide
defence. The primary defence relied upon is
taxation (not by the curator, but by the Taxing Master of the court).
[11]
This defence is negated by a number of factors,
inter alia
:
11.1 It
is not disputed that Plaintiff performed the relevant work during the
period 2017 to 2018.
11.2 The
Plea was filed five to six years thereafter.
11.3 The
obvious question is, why have all the bills not been taxed by now –
if that was really
the arrangement? No explanation is provided
in this regard by Defendant.
11.4
Defendant makes no allegation that he diligently submitted bills for
taxation – not in
the Plea or any of the other documents relied
upon by him.
11.5 The
allegation that he had made an “
upfront payment”
to Plaintiff (no amount or dates are provided) contradicts his own
alleged agreement that payment would be made
only after taxation
.
11.6 His
Opposing Affidavit also contradicts the taxation defence because:
·
It does not refer to taxation before the Taxing Master at all.
It simply blames Plaintiff for not having proved his claims
with the
curator. The curator was only appointed in May 2022 – a
number of years after the last work had been performed
by Plaintiff.
·
He now says the claims have become prescribed – contrary to the
“
suspensive condition”
of taxation upon which he
relies in his Plea.
·
He says there was no contingency fee agreement. (Such an
agreement would have been a prerequisite if Plaintiff had really
agreed to limit his fees to amounts that will be taxed later on).
11.7 The
“
defence”
that Auxcon never contacted him to
discuss what had been taxed, also does not make sense:
·
If the agreement had been “
I shall pay you what has been
taxed”
, what was there to discuss?
·
Defendant does not allege payment of all taxed amounts either,
neither does he tender payment thereof in his Plea.
OTHER DEENCES
:
[12]
I have already pointed out that a defendant would not be
bona fide
if he later adds defences which had existed at the time of his plea
but were not raised. Insofar as Defendant could in principle
rely on such defences, the ones raised are also not
bona fide
.
I provide a few examples:
12.1 The
Plea does not refer to the curator at all, although such curator had
been appointed more
than three years before the Plea was filed.
12.2
Needless to say, the Opposing Affidavit is silent as to what
information Defendant had furnished
to the curator (such as the
Summons
in casu
).
12.3 The
non-joinder of the curator is therefore a red herring and not raised
in a
bona fide
manner.
12.4 The
defence of payment is raised in such vague terms that it can never be
bona fide
. If he had really paid Plaintiff’s
claims, why does he then raise the issues of taxation, prescription
or failure to
prove the claims with his curator?
CONCLUSION
:
[13]
The vague and contradictory manner in which the defences were raised
leaves no doubt
that the Defendant has no
bona fide
defence to
Plaintiff’s claims and justifies punitive costs.
[14]
It was pointed out by Plaintiff’s counsel that a certain amount
was duplicated
in his annexures to the Summons – the sum
reflected in Annexure “X1.4” pertaining to the matter of
“
Maningi Lucia Mbanjana v Road Accident Fund”
is
also contained in Annexure “X1.6” - although the “
day
fee”
was understated in Annexure “X1.4”.
The nett result is that the sum of R30 000.00 should be deducted from
the
amount claimed, leaving a balance of R346 600.00.
ORDER
:
[15]
Summary judgment is granted against Defendant for:
(1)
Payment of the sum of R346 600.00 (three hundred and forty
six
thousand and six hundred rand).
(2)
Interest on the aforesaid sum at 11.5% per annum from 16 April
2025
to date of payment (both days included).
(3)
Costs of suit on an attorney and client scale.
F
J ERASMUS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Electronically
delivered and signed.
APPEARANCES
:
APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF:
Adv L Srydom
INSTRUCTED BY:
Du Bruyn &
Morkel Attorneys
RESPONDENTS:
Adv Rangululu
INSTRUCTED BY:
Rammutla At Law Inc
[1]
See
in general Van Loggerenberg: Erasmus Superior Court Practice,
Volume 2 at RS25, 2024, D1 Rule 32-57 to Rule 32-58.