Cargill RSA (Pty) Ltd v Bibbey N.O. and Others; Cargill RSA (Pty) Ltd v Thunderflex 52 (Pty) Ltd (341/2017, 340/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 132 (24 August 2017)
The court found that while bona fide disputes exist regarding certain invoices and damages, the respondents failed to comprehensively dispute the core invoices totalling R24,328,580.99. The trust's attempts to challenge the invoices were insufficient and lacked substantive evidence. The applicant is entitled to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] ZAFSHC 132
- Parties
- Applicant: Cargill RSA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Louwrens Bibbey N.O.; Respondent: John Frank Bibbey N.O.; Respondent: Adriaan Gerhardus Odendaal Bibbey N.O.; Respondent: Bernardus Johannes Davel N.O.; Respondent: Susara Magdalena Wilhelmina Odendaal Testamentary Trust MT2575/2000; Respondent: Thunderflex 52 (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 24 August 2017
- Case Number
- 341/2017, 340/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Final Determination of Opposed Application; Referral of Disputed Issues to Trial
- Outcome
- Judgment granted in favour of applicant for R24,328,580.99 against all respondents, jointly and severally; perfection of notarial bonds ordered; all remaining disputes referred to trial; costs awarded to applicant.
- Judges
- JP Daffue
- Legal Topics
- Suretyship, Notarial Bond Perfection, Summary Judgment, Dispute of Fact, Attorney and Own Client Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cargill RSA (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Louwrens Bibbey N.O.
Respondent
John Frank Bibbey N.O.
Respondent
Adriaan Gerhardus Odendaal Bibbey N.O.
Respondent
Bernardus Johannes Davel N.O.
Respondent
Susara Magdalena Wilhelmina Odendaal Testamentary Trust MT2575/2000
Respondent
Thunderflex 52 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Determination of Opposed Application; Referral of Disputed Issues to Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are liable to pay the applicant the claimed amount under the Master Input Advance Agreement and perfected notarial bonds.
- 2 Whether disputed invoices and alleged damages can be resolved on affidavit or require referral to trial.
- 3 Whether offers made by the trust constitute admissions of liability or are privileged settlement communications.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while bona fide disputes exist regarding certain invoices and damages, the respondents failed to comprehensively dispute the core invoices totalling R24,328,580.99. The trust's attempts to challenge the invoices were insufficient and lacked substantive evidence. The applicant is entitled to judgment for the undisputed amount and perfection of the notarial bonds. All remaining disputes, including the balance of the claim and any alleged admissions or offers, are referred to trial. Costs are awarded to the applicant on the attorney and own client scale as agreed in the contract.
Court Disposition
Judgment granted in favour of applicant for R24,328,580.99 against all respondents, jointly and severally; perfection of notarial bonds ordered; all remaining disputes referred to trial; costs awarded to applicant.
Orders
- First, second, third and fourth respondents as trustees of the Susara Magdalena Wilhelmina Odendaal Testamentary Trust MT2575/1999 shall pay the applicant R24,328,580.99, jointly and severally with Thunderflex 52 (Pty) Ltd, the one to pay, the other to be absolved.
- The Notarial Bond, Annexure 'C86' to the Founding Affidavit, is perfected.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment