Rantho v Mankoe and Another (4402/07) [2012] ZAGPPHC 338 (14 December 2012)

Rantho v Mankoe and Another (4402/07) [2012] ZAGPPHC 338 (14 December 2012)

The court found that neither defendant explicitly denied signing the loan agreement in their pleadings or affidavits, and under Rule 22, such facts are deemed admitted. The evidence and conduct of both defendants suggested opportunism and lack of credibility, especially in light of their responses regarding the missing signed agreement. The plaintiff and his witness were found credible, and the court accepted that the second defendant signed the agreement and is jointly liable. Regarding the counterclaim, the court found no credible evidence of a telephonic agreement for commission, noting that the alleged setoff was only raised as an afterthought and was unsupported by the conduct of the...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 338
Parties
Plaintiff: Motsami Petrus Rantho; Defendant: Moditi Lucas Mankoe; Defendant: Jolina Nanana Mashile
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2012
Case Number
4402/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Claim and Counterclaim
Outcome
Judgment granted against the second defendant, jointly with the first defendant, for payment of R650,000.00, interest, and costs. The first defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Loan Agreement, Joint Liability, Pleadings and Admissions, Counterclaim, Setoff, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Loan Agreement Joint Liability Pleadings and Admissions Counterclaim Setoff Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Motsami Petrus Rantho

Plaintiff

Moditi Lucas Mankoe

Defendant

Jolina Nanana Mashile

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial on Claim and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant signed the loan agreement and is jointly liable for repayment of R650,000.00.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant's counterclaim based on an alleged telephonic agreement for commission is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that neither defendant explicitly denied signing the loan agreement in their pleadings or affidavits, and under Rule 22, such facts are deemed admitted. The evidence and conduct of both defendants suggested opportunism and lack of credibility, especially in light of their responses regarding the missing signed agreement. The plaintiff and his witness were found credible, and the court accepted that the second defendant signed the agreement and is jointly liable. Regarding the counterclaim, the court found no credible evidence of a telephonic agreement for commission, noting that the alleged setoff was only raised as an afterthought and was unsupported by the conduct of the...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted against the second defendant, jointly with the first defendant, for payment of R650,000.00, interest, and costs. The first defendant's counterclaim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted against the second defendant, jointly with the first defendant, for payment of R650,000.00.
  • Interest on the amount of R650,000.00 at the rate of 15.5% per annum from 30 November 2006 to date of payment.