C Steinweg Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Darier Alloy CC (2019/14315) [2020] ZAGPJHC 8 (17 January 2020)

C Steinweg Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Darier Alloy CC (2019/14315) [2020] ZAGPJHC 8 (17 January 2020)

The court found that the affidavit supporting summary judgment was valid, as the deponent had personal knowledge of the facts through his office and company records. The claim had not prescribed because the defendant acknowledged liability in writing, interrupting prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The plaintiff was entitled to sell the defendant's goods under clause 35 of the contract, which provided for parate executie, and this was not contrary to section 25 of the Constitution. The defendant's counterclaim and set-off defence were unsustainable, as the contract expressly excluded set-off unless agreed in writing. The defendant admitted liability and failed to raise...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 8
Parties
Applicant: C Steinweg Logistics (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Darier Alloy CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2020
Case Number
2019/14315
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Prescription Act, Parate Executie, Contractual Liability, Set Off Exclusion
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Prescription Act Parate Executie Contractual Liability Set Off Exclusion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C Steinweg Logistics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Darier Alloy CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the affidavit in support of summary judgment is valid and based on personal knowledge.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim has prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to sell the defendant's goods under the contract (parate executie).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavit supporting summary judgment was valid, as the deponent had personal knowledge of the facts through his office and company records. The claim had not prescribed because the defendant acknowledged liability in writing, interrupting prescription under section 14 of the Prescription Act. The plaintiff was entitled to sell the defendant's goods under clause 35 of the contract, which provided for parate executie, and this was not contrary to section 25 of the Constitution. The defendant's counterclaim and set-off defence were unsustainable, as the contract expressly excluded set-off unless agreed in writing. The defendant admitted liability and failed to raise...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is to make payment in the amount of R322,951.90 to the plaintiff.
  • The defendant is to make payment of interest on the above amount at the applicable rate.