Makonye v Pule Inc and Others (045931/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1165 (11 November 2024)

Makonye v Pule Inc and Others (045931/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1165 (11 November 2024)

The court found that the Respondents had raised a bona fide defence based on the contractual agreement that payment to the Applicant was conditional upon receipt of funds from the Road Accident Fund. The Applicant did not successfully rebut the Respondents' assertion that payment was not yet due, nor did he demonstrate that the defence was mala fide or a sham. The court held that summary judgment is not appropriate where triable issues exist and the defence is bona fide. Accordingly, the Respondents were granted leave to defend the action, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1165
Parties
Applicant: Makonye Lesley Sello; Respondent: Pule Inc; Respondent: Itumeleng Nondwana; Respondent: Pule Nkosi Simphiwe; Respondent: Thobejane Walie Poelo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Case Number
045931/2023
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment Application; Judgment on Leave to Defend
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; Respondents granted leave to defend; costs in the cause.
Judges
Nharmuravate
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Liability, Legal Practitioners Fees, Bona Fide Defence, Legal Practice Act, Code of Conduct
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Liability Legal Practitioners Fees Bona Fide Defence Legal Practice Act Code of Conduct

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makonye Lesley Sello

Applicant

Pule Inc

Respondent

Itumeleng Nondwana

Respondent

Pule Nkosi Simphiwe

Respondent

Thobejane Walie Poelo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment Application; Judgment on Leave to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents have established a bona fide defence to the Applicant's claim for outstanding advocate's fees.
  2. 2 Whether the summary judgment should be granted in light of the contractual terms between the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant's claim is due and payable given the condition precedent of payment from the Road Accident Fund.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondents had raised a bona fide defence based on the contractual agreement that payment to the Applicant was conditional upon receipt of funds from the Road Accident Fund. The Applicant did not successfully rebut the Respondents' assertion that payment was not yet due, nor did he demonstrate that the defence was mala fide or a sham. The court held that summary judgment is not appropriate where triable issues exist and the defence is bona fide. Accordingly, the Respondents were granted leave to defend the action, and costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; Respondents granted leave to defend; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment is refused.
  • The Respondents are granted leave to defend the action.