Corrigan Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kevcor v BMI Driving (Pty) Ltd (3939/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 204 (9 November 2017)

Corrigan Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kevcor v BMI Driving (Pty) Ltd (3939/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 204 (9 November 2017)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was for a liquidated amount, as the quantum could be readily ascertained from the nature of the transaction—goods sold and delivered. The simple summons was sufficiently particular, and the omission of the year after 'March' did not render the claim vague. The deponent to the verifying affidavit, as a director, had personal knowledge of the transactions, and his affidavit complied with the requirements for summary judgment. The defendant failed to advance any substantive defence, relying only on technical objections and failing to check its own records. The absence of appended invoices did not invalidate the claim, as such documents are evidence...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 204
Parties
Plaintiff: Corrigan Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kevcor; Defendant: BMI Driving (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 November 2017
Case Number
3939/2017
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Simple Summons
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Judges
J.J.F. Hefer
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidated Demand, Goods Sold and Delivered, Simple Summons Requirements
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Liquidated Demand Goods Sold and Delivered Simple Summons Requirements

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

Parties

Corrigan Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Kevcor

Plaintiff

BMI Driving (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Simple Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim constitutes a liquidated demand for purposes of summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's simple summons contains sufficient particularity to sustain the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of invoices or delivery notes invalidates the summary judgment application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was for a liquidated amount, as the quantum could be readily ascertained from the nature of the transaction—goods sold and delivered. The simple summons was sufficiently particular, and the omission of the year after 'March' did not render the claim vague. The deponent to the verifying affidavit, as a director, had personal knowledge of the transactions, and his affidavit complied with the requirements for summary judgment. The defendant failed to advance any substantive defence, relying only on technical objections and failing to check its own records. The absence of appended invoices did not invalidate the claim, as such documents are evidence...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the amount of R348,999.53 to the plaintiff.
  • Interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 10.25% per annum from 3 August 2017 until date of payment.