Lotter and Others v Sekekete and Others (125/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 32 (26 February 2020)

Lotter and Others v Sekekete and Others (125/2017) [2020] ZAFSHC 32 (26 February 2020)

The court found that the plaintiffs' version was probable, credible, and supported by the evidence. The plaintiffs were approached by the first defendant, entered into verbal contracts, delivered water, and received payments. The defendants' version was inconsistent and lacked candour, particularly regarding the existence of meetings and the nature of the contractual relationship. The plaintiffs discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the court accepted their version that the first defendant was the contracting party. The defendants' version was rejected as improbable and unreliable.

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: Willem Jacobus Lotter; Plaintiff: Christian Jacobus Saaiman; Plaintiff: Johan De Vos Lotter; Plaintiff: Gerhardus Bartolomias Saaiman; Defendant: Samuel Sekekete; Defendant: Willem Sekekete; Defendant: Movelisto Mavela
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2020
Case Number
125/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is found to have entered into contracts with the plaintiffs. Costs are awarded against the first, third, and fourth defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying to absolve the others.
Judges
N. M. Mbhele
Legal Topics
Verbal Contract, Subcontracting, Payment of Debt, Mutually Destructive Versions
Commercial and Corporate Verbal Contract Subcontracting Payment of Debt Mutually Destructive Versions

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Jacobus Lotter

Plaintiff

Christian Jacobus Saaiman

Plaintiff

Johan De Vos Lotter

Plaintiff

Gerhardus Bartolomias Saaiman

Plaintiff

Samuel Sekekete

Defendant

Willem Sekekete

Defendant

Movelisto Mavela

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant or the fourth defendant represented by the third defendant was the contracting party with the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether valid verbal contracts existed between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' version was probable, credible, and supported by the evidence. The plaintiffs were approached by the first defendant, entered into verbal contracts, delivered water, and received payments. The defendants' version was inconsistent and lacked candour, particularly regarding the existence of meetings and the nature of the contractual relationship. The plaintiffs discharged the onus of proof on a balance of probabilities, and the court accepted their version that the first defendant was the contracting party. The defendants' version was rejected as improbable and unreliable.

Court Disposition

Judgment in favour of the plaintiffs. The first defendant is found to have entered into contracts with the plaintiffs. Costs are awarded against the first, third, and fourth defendants, jointly and severally, the one paying to absolve the others.

Orders

  • The first defendant is found to have entered into contracts with the first to fourth plaintiffs.
  • The first, third, and fourth defendants shall pay the costs, the one paying to absolve the others.