Develex 679 CC v Airports Company of South Africa Limited (11984/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 652 (13 December 2018)

Develex 679 CC v Airports Company of South Africa Limited (11984/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 652 (13 December 2018)

The court found that the respondent's defence of prescription created sufficient doubt as to the applicant's entitlement to summary judgment. The applicant's reliance on statements made at a meeting on 22 July 2015 did not amount to an express or tacit acknowledgement of liability as required by section 14 of the Prescription Act. The debts claimed arose between 2011 and 2015, and since summons was issued on 23 March 2018, any debts due before 23 March 2015 may have prescribed unless interrupted. The evidence presented did not establish such interruption. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused and the respondent was granted leave to defend the main action.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 652
Parties
Applicant: Develex 679 CC; Respondent: Airports Company of South Africa Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2018
Case Number
11984/2018
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed
Outcome
Application for summary judgment refused; respondent granted leave to defend.
Judges
CHJ Badenhorst
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Prescription Act, Contractual Liability, Acknowledgement of Debt
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Prescription Act Contractual Liability Acknowledgement 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Develex 679 CC

Applicant

Airports Company of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Opposed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to summary judgment for payment under the contract.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defence of prescription is valid and precludes summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether there was an interruption of prescription or an acknowledgement of liability by the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's defence of prescription created sufficient doubt as to the applicant's entitlement to summary judgment. The applicant's reliance on statements made at a meeting on 22 July 2015 did not amount to an express or tacit acknowledgement of liability as required by section 14 of the Prescription Act. The debts claimed arose between 2011 and 2015, and since summons was issued on 23 March 2018, any debts due before 23 March 2015 may have prescribed unless interrupted. The evidence presented did not establish such interruption. Accordingly, summary judgment was refused and the respondent was granted leave to defend the main action.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment refused; respondent granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is refused and the respondent is granted leave to defend the main action.
  • The costs of the summary judgment proceedings will be costs in the cause.