Farmwise Gains (Pty) Ltd v Hageman (1020/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 101 (24 May 2012)

Farmwise Gains (Pty) Ltd v Hageman (1020/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 101 (24 May 2012)

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not for a liquidated amount, as the damages claimed depended on actions of the parties or third parties and required agreement or arbitration to determine the quantum. The plaintiff's reliance on clause 15(1)(b) of the contract, which provides for damages to be agreed mutually or settled by arbitration, confirmed that the claim was illiquid. The defendant's heads of argument were sufficient to fill the gap created by the failure to comply with Rule 32(3), and the court exercised its discretion to refuse summary judgment and grant leave to defend.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 101
Parties
Plaintiff: Farmwise Gains (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Reinhardt Hageman
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2012
Case Number
1020/2012
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; defendant granted leave to defend.
Judges
J J Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidated Damages, Contractual Breach, Grain Delivery Contract
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Liquidated Damages Contractual Breach Grain Delivery Contract

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

Parties

Farmwise Gains (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Reinhardt Hageman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim is for a liquidated amount of money.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant raised a proper defence in terms of Rule 32(3)(b).
  3. 3 Whether the verification of the cause of action is proper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not for a liquidated amount, as the damages claimed depended on actions of the parties or third parties and required agreement or arbitration to determine the quantum. The plaintiff's reliance on clause 15(1)(b) of the contract, which provides for damages to be agreed mutually or settled by arbitration, confirmed that the claim was illiquid. The defendant's heads of argument were sufficient to fill the gap created by the failure to comply with Rule 32(3), and the court exercised its discretion to refuse summary judgment and grant leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; defendant granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is refused and defendant is granted leave to defend the action.
  • Costs of the application for summary judgment are left over for decision by the trial court.