Centenary Plant Hire CC v Acheson (37366/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 653 (13 December 2018)

Centenary Plant Hire CC v Acheson (37366/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 653 (13 December 2018)

The court found that the applicant had established an unanswerable case for summary judgment. The respondent's technical defences, including failure to account for the deposit, lack of certificate, confusion over two suretyships, and alleged failure to set out the claim against the principal debtor, were all rejected as lacking merit. The deposit was paid by the tenant, not the respondent, and was irrelevant to the suretyship. The certificate of indebtedness was optional and not required. The respondent's liability as surety was joint and several, and the particulars of claim adequately set out the claim against the principal debtor. The dispute resolution clause in the lease did not...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 653
Parties
Applicant: Centenary Plant Hire CC; Respondent: Douglas Robert Acheson
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
37366/2018
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
CHJ Badenhorst
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Suretyship Liability, Lease Agreement, Liquidated Claim, Exception Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Suretyship Liability Lease Agreement Liquidated Claim Exception Procedure

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

Parties

Centenary Plant Hire CC

Applicant

Douglas Robert Acheson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established an unanswerable case for summary judgment against the respondent as surety.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's technical defences and exceptions are valid grounds to resist summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the amount claimed is a liquidated amount of money.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established an unanswerable case for summary judgment. The respondent's technical defences, including failure to account for the deposit, lack of certificate, confusion over two suretyships, and alleged failure to set out the claim against the principal debtor, were all rejected as lacking merit. The deposit was paid by the tenant, not the respondent, and was irrelevant to the suretyship. The certificate of indebtedness was optional and not required. The respondent's liability as surety was joint and several, and the particulars of claim adequately set out the claim against the principal debtor. The dispute resolution clause in the lease did not...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • Payment of the amount of R1,900,101.71.
  • Interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 2 October 2018 to date of payment.