De Villiers v Human and Another (236/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 85 (22 September 2016)

De Villiers v Human and Another (236/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 85 (22 September 2016)

The court found that the defendants failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the alleged variation of the oral agreement. Their defence was bald and lacked material facts, such as when and how the variation was agreed. The court held that mere awareness by the plaintiff of difficulties in selling the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 85
Parties
Plaintiff: Dean De Villiers; Defendant: Ralph Human; Defendant: Patricia Human
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Case Number
236/2016
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Appearance to Defend
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against both defendants, jointly and severally.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Oral Agreement, Liquidated Claim, Variation of Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Oral Agreement Liquidated Claim Variation of Contract

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Dean De Villiers

Plaintiff

Ralph Human

Defendant

Patricia Human

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment Following Appearance to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have disclosed a bona fide defence sufficient to resist summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's claim is properly founded on a liquidated amount in money arising from an oral agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged variation of the repayment date constitutes a triable issue.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants failed to provide sufficient particularity regarding the alleged variation of the oral agreement. Their defence was bald and lacked material facts, such as when and how the variation was agreed. The court held that mere awareness by the plaintiff of difficulties in selling the property did not amount to acquiescence to a change in the repayment date. The technical objection regarding the certificate of value was dismissed, as the claim was for a liquidated amount based on the oral agreement and the agreed interest rate. The defendants did not meet the requirements of Rule 32(3)(b) and thus summary judgment was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against both defendants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R1 300 000.00 jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • Defendants are ordered to pay interest on the above amount at the rate of 12% per annum from 29 May 2013 until date of payment.