ED Food S.R.L v Africas Best (Pty) Limited (2022-1245) [2024] ZAGPJHC 311 (14 March 2024)

ED Food S.R.L v Africas Best (Pty) Limited (2022-1245) [2024] ZAGPJHC 311 (14 March 2024)

The court found that the affidavits commissioned via video conference were substantially compliant with the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act and regulations. The Commissioner of Oaths was entitled to administer the oath outside South Africa. The respondent's version of the agreement was rejected as it was inconsistent with the correspondence and conduct, and the alleged alternative terms were raised for the first time in the answering affidavit. The applicant's claim for EUR 28,000 was upheld, with interest to run from the date of formal demand (3 May 2021). The respondent's conduct in delaying payment and raising improbable defences justified a punitive costs order....

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 311
Parties
Applicant: ED Food S.R.L.; Respondent: Africas Best (Pty) Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Case Number
2022/1245
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to pay EUR 28,000 plus interest and costs.
Judges
A P Den Hartog
Legal Topics
Commissioning of Affidavits, Substantial Compliance, Oral Settlement Agreement, Interest on Debt, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Commissioning of Affidavits Substantial Compliance Oral Settlement Agreement Interest on Debt Punitive Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ED Food S.R.L.

Applicant

Africas Best (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether affidavits commissioned virtually outside South Africa comply with the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act and regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant EUR 28,000 under the oral settlement agreement.
  3. 3 Whether interest should run from the date of demand or earlier.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the affidavits commissioned via video conference were substantially compliant with the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act and regulations. The Commissioner of Oaths was entitled to administer the oath outside South Africa. The respondent's version of the agreement was rejected as it was inconsistent with the correspondence and conduct, and the alleged alternative terms were raised for the first time in the answering affidavit. The applicant's claim for EUR 28,000 was upheld, with interest to run from the date of formal demand (3 May 2021). The respondent's conduct in delaying payment and raising improbable defences justified a punitive costs order....

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to pay EUR 28,000 plus interest and costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant EUR 28,000.
  • Interest on EUR 28,000 at a tempore more from 3 May 2021 to date of payment.