Makhabo v Viljoen and Others (2022/059140) [2025] ZAGPPHC 688 (9 July 2025)

Makhabo v Viljoen and Others (2022/059140) [2025] ZAGPPHC 688 (9 July 2025)

The court found that the defendants admitted receipt of R500 000.00 and failed to refund the plaintiff despite demand. The first defendant, Viljoen, failed to provide evidence of a valid franchise agreement or entitlement to the funds, nor did he substantiate his denial of misrepresentation. The second defendant, Tammy Taylor SA Holdings, did not file any affidavit resisting summary judgment and failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the claim of undue enrichment. The court held that the representations made by Viljoen were false and material, inducing the plaintiff to pay the money. As no franchise agreement was concluded, the payment was not due and the defendants were unduly...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 688
Parties
Plaintiff: Faith Makhabo; Defendant: Peet Viljoen; Defendant: Tammy Taylor Nails SA Holdings t/a Tammy Taylor Nails
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2025
Case Number
2022/059140
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment After Plea Filed
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for R500 000.00, with interest and costs.
Judges
MPD Chabedi
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Undue Enrichment, Franchise Agreement, Liquidated Claim
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Undue Enrichment Franchise Agreement Liquidated Claim

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Faith Makhabo

Plaintiff

Peet Viljoen

Defendant

Tammy Taylor Nails SA Holdings t/a Tammy Taylor Nails

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment After Plea Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants have disclosed a bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for repayment of R500 000.00.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant misrepresented the franchise rights of the second defendant to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant was unduly enriched by the plaintiff's payment in the absence of a concluded franchise agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants admitted receipt of R500 000.00 and failed to refund the plaintiff despite demand. The first defendant, Viljoen, failed to provide evidence of a valid franchise agreement or entitlement to the funds, nor did he substantiate his denial of misrepresentation. The second defendant, Tammy Taylor SA Holdings, did not file any affidavit resisting summary judgment and failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the claim of undue enrichment. The court held that the representations made by Viljoen were false and material, inducing the plaintiff to pay the money. As no franchise agreement was concluded, the payment was not due and the defendants were unduly...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff for R500 000.00, with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff in the amount of R500 000.00.
  • The first and second defendants are ordered to pay to the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the amount of R500 000.00.