Mudau v Brian Ramaboa Incorporated and Another (049420/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 628 (18 June 2025)

Mudau v Brian Ramaboa Incorporated and Another (049420/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 628 (18 June 2025)

The Defendants failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the Plaintiff's claim for the outstanding balance of R277,720.00. The Defendants provided proof of payment for certain invoices, which the Plaintiff deducted from the total claim, but did not substantiate further payments or a defence to the remaining amount. The special plea of prescription was rejected because the agreement stipulated that payment was due only upon receipt of funds from the Road Accident Fund, and the Defendants did not allege or prove when such payment was received. Consequently, prescription had not commenced for the invoices in question. The Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the reduced amount, with...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 628
Parties
Applicant: Ruth Mudau; Respondent: Brian Ramaboa Incorporated; Respondent: Brian Rangwedi Ramaboa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2025
Case Number
049420/2023
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of R277,720.00, with interest and costs on a party and party scale.
Judges
J.F. Grobler
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Prescription Act, Attorney Advocate Fee Dispute, Contractual Liability
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Prescription Act Attorney Advocate Fee Dispute Contractual Liability

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Mudau

Applicant

Brian Ramaboa Incorporated

Respondent

Brian Rangwedi Ramaboa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants have a bona fide defence to the Plaintiff's claim for outstanding fees.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants' special plea of prescription is sustainable under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the reduced amount after accounting for payments made.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants failed to disclose a bona fide defence to the Plaintiff's claim for the outstanding balance of R277,720.00. The Defendants provided proof of payment for certain invoices, which the Plaintiff deducted from the total claim, but did not substantiate further payments or a defence to the remaining amount. The special plea of prescription was rejected because the agreement stipulated that payment was due only upon receipt of funds from the Road Accident Fund, and the Defendants did not allege or prove when such payment was received. Consequently, prescription had not commenced for the invoices in question. The Plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment for the reduced amount, with...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of R277,720.00, with interest and costs on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The First and Second Defendants, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the Plaintiff the amount of R277,720.00.
  • Interest on the aforesaid sum calculated per annum a tempore morae, from date of Summons to date of final payment.