Paramount Property Fund Limited v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2022-15013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1180 (18 October 2023)

Paramount Property Fund Limited v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2022-15013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1180 (18 October 2023)

The court found that the application raised extensive disputes of fact, particularly regarding the existence and authority of a verbal agreement, the calculation and payment of electricity charges, and the alleged prescription of Eskom's invoices. The affidavits did not resolve these disputes, and the replying affidavit failed to clarify the contested issues. The court held that the matter could not be decided on affidavit and required full pleadings, discovery, and a trial to determine the factual and legal questions, including prescription. Accordingly, the court converted the notice of motion into a simple summons and directed that the matter proceed as a trial action, reserving costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1180
Parties
Applicant: Paramount Property Fund Limited; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2023
Case Number
2022-15013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Pre Trial Directions
Outcome
Application converted to trial action; costs reserved.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Prescription, Declaratory Relief, Electricity Supply Contract, Disputes of Fact
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Prescription Declaratory Relief Electricity Supply Contract Disputes of Fact

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paramount Property Fund Limited

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Pre Trial Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Eskom's invoices for the three-year period before October 2018 have prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to repayment of R380 000 allegedly paid under protest to Eskom.
  3. 3 Whether the matter can be resolved on affidavit or requires referral to trial due to disputes of fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application raised extensive disputes of fact, particularly regarding the existence and authority of a verbal agreement, the calculation and payment of electricity charges, and the alleged prescription of Eskom's invoices. The affidavits did not resolve these disputes, and the replying affidavit failed to clarify the contested issues. The court held that the matter could not be decided on affidavit and required full pleadings, discovery, and a trial to determine the factual and legal questions, including prescription. Accordingly, the court converted the notice of motion into a simple summons and directed that the matter proceed as a trial action, reserving costs.

Court Disposition

Application converted to trial action; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The notice of motion stands as a simple summons.
  • The notice to oppose stands as a notice of intention to defend.