Celanubusi (PTY) LTD v Amanzi Ahlo Bile Trading 25 (PTY) LTD t/a Trisch Industries (1715/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 21 (3 February 2023)

Celanubusi (PTY) LTD v Amanzi Ahlo Bile Trading 25 (PTY) LTD t/a Trisch Industries (1715/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 21 (3 February 2023)

The court found that the respondent admitted the existence of the contract but failed to provide sufficient evidence or quantification for its alleged lower indebtedness. The respondent's defence was a bare denial and did not raise a triable issue. The applicant's deponent, as sole director and manager of accounts, had personal knowledge of the transaction. Payment patterns and documentary evidence contradicted the respondent's claim regarding payment intervals. The court exercised its discretion and determined that the respondent's defence was not bona fide and was intended to delay judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 21
Parties
Applicant: Celanubusi (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Amanzi Ahlo Bile Trading 25 (PTY) LTD t/a Trisch Industries
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Case Number
1715/2022
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount claimed.
Judges
Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Dispute, Breach of Contract, Quantification of Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Dispute Breach of Contract Quantification of Debt

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Celanubusi (PTY) LTD

Applicant

Amanzi Ahlo Bile Trading 25 (PTY) LTD t/a Trisch Industries

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant the sum of R698 340,00 under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has a bona fide defence to the applicant's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the deponent to the applicant's affidavit has personal knowledge of the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent admitted the existence of the contract but failed to provide sufficient evidence or quantification for its alleged lower indebtedness. The respondent's defence was a bare denial and did not raise a triable issue. The applicant's deponent, as sole director and manager of accounts, had personal knowledge of the transaction. Payment patterns and documentary evidence contradicted the respondent's claim regarding payment intervals. The court exercised its discretion and determined that the respondent's defence was not bona fide and was intended to delay judgment. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant for the full amount claimed.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of R698 340,00.
  • Interest thereon payable temporae morae.