Project House Project Management (PTY) Ltd v Roussos (2021/14183) [2022] ZAGPJHC 349 (20 May 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPJHC 349
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- VM Movshovich
- Case number
- 2021/14183
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- VM Movshovich
- Case number
- 2021/14183
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, although the defendant's pleadings lacked detail, his denial of the existence of an agreement and his assertion of absence from Johannesburg on the relevant date were sufficient to raise a triable issue. The court held that it is difficult to prove a negative and that such a denial does not fall into the category of uncreditworthy bare denials. The jurisdictional objection raised by the defendant was dismissed, as residence is not the only basis for jurisdiction and the plaintiff may establish jurisdiction by virtue of the cause of action. Accordingly, the summary judgment application was dismissed and the defendant was granted leave to defend the action.
Court disposition
Summary judgment application dismissed; defendant granted leave to defend.
Orders
- The summary judgment application is dismissed.
- The defendant is granted leave to defend the action.
- The costs of the summary judgment application shall be costs in the cause of the action.
02
Material facts
Parties
Project House Project Management (PTY) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: SB FriedlandPaul Roussos
Respondent Counsel: S Kabelo03
Procedural history
Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendant has pleaded a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application.
- 02
Whether a triable issue arises from the defendant's denial of the agreement.
- 03
Whether the defendant's jurisdictional objection is valid.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the defendant's pleadings are bare and do not disclose a bona fide defence. The applicant asserts that an agreement was concluded on 4 September 2018, appointing it as project manager for a building project, and that it performed work and invoiced accordingly. The applicant argues that the defendant's denial is unsubstantiated and does not raise a triable issue.
- Respondent
- The respondent denies that any agreement was concluded with the applicant and points out that he was not in Johannesburg on the alleged date and does not own the property in question. He further raises jurisdictional objections, stating that he resides in Cape Town and not Johannesburg, and asserts that the applicant has not made out a case for jurisdiction.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Wightman t/a J W Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another [2008] ZASCA 6; 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA), para [13]
A defendant may plead a denial where there is a void or absence of fact, and such a denial may suffice to raise a triable issue if it is not uncreditworthy or bare.
- 02
Common law jurisdiction principles
Residence is not the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction; a plaintiff may establish jurisdiction based on the cause of action.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, although the defendant's pleadings lacked detail, his denial of the existence of an agreement and his assertion of absence from Johannesburg on the relevant date were sufficient to raise a triable issue. The court held that it is difficult to prove a negative and that such a denial does not fall into the category of uncreditworthy bare denials. The jurisdictional objection raised by the defendant was dismissed, as residence is not the only basis for jurisdiction and the plaintiff may establish jurisdiction by virtue of the cause of action. Accordingly, the summary judgment application was dismissed and the defendant was granted leave to defend the action.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the costs of the summary judgment application should follow the fate of the main action, given the lack of clarity in the pleadings and surrounding circumstances.
- The court cautioned that jurisdiction should not be determined solely on the basis of residence, and that other grounds such as cause of action may suffice.
Court disposition
Summary judgment application dismissed; defendant granted leave to defend.
- The summary judgment application is dismissed.
- The defendant is granted leave to defend the action.
- The costs of the summary judgment application shall be costs in the cause of the action.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: 2021/14183
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED
YES
20 May 2022
In the matter between:
PROJECT HOUSE PROJECT MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
PAUL
ROUSSOS
Respondent
Heard: 22 February 2022
Judgment: 20 May 2022
JUDGMENT
MOVSHOVICH AJ:
Introduction and background
1. This is an application for summary judgment.
2. The plaintiff alleges in its particulars of claim (and application for summary judgment) that on 4 September 2018 it concluded an agreement with the defendant in Johannesburg. It is not pleaded whether the agreement was oral, written or tacit. It then followed up the conclusion of the agreement with a letter to the defendant dated 4 September 2018, stipulating that the
"terms and conditions of appointment shall be as per the PROCSA document (available on request)". An unsigned version of a PROCSA Agreement is annexed to the summons. The plaintiff alleges that in terms of the above, it was appointed as project manager in respect of a building project by the defendant.
3. The plaintiff then pleaded that it fulfilled certain stages in the PROCSA Agreement and invoiced for those, but has not been paid.
4. The defendant's plea is not detailed. He essentially denies that any agreement was concluded between him and the plaintiff. He does not plead any alternate version of an agreement with the plaintiff. He does, however, point out the improbability of any alleged agreement by virtue of the fact that he was not in Johannesburg on 4 September 2018 and that he does not even own the property to which the project covered by the alleged PROCSA Agreement relates.
Analysis
5. The key question is whether a bona fide defence has been pleaded and whether a triable issue arises. In this regard, the plaintiff avers that the defendant's pleadings are bare and thus no bona fide defence arises. It is fair to state that the plea lacks detail. The defendant's version is that he did not conclude any agreement with the plaintiff at all. In those circumstances, where there is a void or an absence of fact, it may well be sufficient simply to plead a denial: it is difficult to prove a negative or say much more about it. This kind of pleading would not fall into the category of uncreditworthy bare denials contemplated in Wightman.[1] The defendant also substantively pleaded his absence from Johannesburg on the date of the alleged agreement.
6. In my view, although the pleadings could have been more detailed, they suffice to raise a triable issue.
7. Given the opaqueness with which the defendant framed his pleadings, and general lack of clarity as to the surrounding circumstances of any work carried out by the plaintiff, in my view it would be fair and just for the costs of the summary judgment proceedings to suffer the fate of the main action.
8. The defendant has put up additional defences to the application. I do not propose to deal with them in detail in this judgment, given my conclusions above. I note, however, that the defendant's contention that this Court has no jurisdiction because the defendant is not resident in Johannesburg but in Cape Town needs to be approached with caution. Residence is not the sole basis for establishing jurisdiction and the plaintiff can make out a case for "cause of action" jurisdiction by this Court.
Order
9. I thus make the following order:
9.1 the summary judgment application is dismissed;
9.2 the defendant is granted leave to defend the action;
9.3 the costs of the summary judgment application shall be costs in the cause of the action.
Hand-down and date of judgment
10. This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email and by uploading the judgment onto Caselines. The date and time for hand down of the judgment are deemed to be 13:00 on 20 May 2022.
VM
MOVSHOVICH
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Applicant's Counsel: SB Friedland
Applicants' Attorneys: Beder-Friedland Inc
Respondents' Counsel: S Kabelo
Respondents' Attorneys: KWA Attorneys
Date of Hearing: 22 February 2022
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2022
[1] Wightman t/a J W Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another [2008] ZASCA 6; 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA), para [13].
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.