Kenosima Trading & Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another v Baswara Trading (HCA41/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 52 (20 May 2024)

Kenosima Trading & Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another v Baswara Trading (HCA41/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 52 (20 May 2024)

The court found that the magistrate correctly concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent rendered services to the first appellant, represented by the second appellant, and that the amount claimed was due and payable. The evidence presented by the respondent, including oral testimony, invoices, and communications, was uncontested, as the appellants chose not to lead evidence to the contrary. The respondent was VAT registered and entitled to claim VAT. The magistrate was justified in holding both appellants jointly and severally liable, and absolution from the instance was correctly refused. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 52
Parties
Appellant: Kenosima Trading & Projects (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Simane Ephraim Kenoshi; Respondent: Baswara Trading
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Case Number
HCA41/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
T. Deane, M. Naude-Odendaal
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Joint and Several Liability, Absolution From the Instance, Onus of Proof, Vat Entitlement
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Joint and Several Liability Absolution From the Instance Onus of Proof Vat Entitlement

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

Parties

Kenosima Trading & Projects (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Simane Ephraim Kenoshi

Appellant

Baswara Trading

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in granting judgment against both appellants jointly and severally.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent proved that services were rendered and payment was due.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to claim VAT on the invoiced amount.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate correctly concluded, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondent rendered services to the first appellant, represented by the second appellant, and that the amount claimed was due and payable. The evidence presented by the respondent, including oral testimony, invoices, and communications, was uncontested, as the appellants chose not to lead evidence to the contrary. The respondent was VAT registered and entitled to claim VAT. The magistrate was justified in holding both appellants jointly and severally liable, and absolution from the instance was correctly refused. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.