Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots Free State v Cronje t/a Fisherman's Bar (2334/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 358 (14 September 2023)

Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots Free State v Cronje t/a Fisherman's Bar (2334/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 358 (14 September 2023)

The respondent failed to raise any valid or bona fide defence to the applicant's claims. The contractual obligations alleged to have been breached by the applicant were either discretionary or unsupported by evidence. The respondent signed the loan agreement with a detailed annexure and cannot credibly deny knowledge of the debt. The applicant was entitled to cancel the agreement and remove its machines after the respondent's default. No genuine dispute of fact was established, and the applicant's version is accepted. The applicant is entitled to access the premises, remove the machines, recover the outstanding loan amount, and costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 358
Parties
Applicant: Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots Free State; Respondent: Eduard Willem Cronje t/a Fisherman's Bar
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2023
Case Number
2334/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion Application
Outcome
Application granted in full.
Judges
P. J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Contract Enforcement, Specific Performance, Loan Agreement, Removal of Property, Costs Award
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Enforcement Specific Performance Loan Agreement Removal of Property Costs Award

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Restivox (Pty) Ltd t/a Crazy Slots Free State

Applicant

Eduard Willem Cronje t/a Fisherman's Bar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to access the respondent's premises and remove four Limited Payout Machines.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is liable to pay the applicant R37,857.00 under the loan agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has raised any valid contractual defence to the applicant's claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to raise any valid or bona fide defence to the applicant's claims. The contractual obligations alleged to have been breached by the applicant were either discretionary or unsupported by evidence. The respondent signed the loan agreement with a detailed annexure and cannot credibly deny knowledge of the debt. The applicant was entitled to cancel the agreement and remove its machines after the respondent's default. No genuine dispute of fact was established, and the applicant's version is accepted. The applicant is entitled to access the premises, remove the machines, recover the outstanding loan amount, and costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted in full.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to forthwith grant the applicant access to the premises known as Fisherman's Bar, Roodewal, Bloemfontein, and permit removal of four Limited Payout Machines.
  • If the respondent refuses access or removal, the Deputy Sheriff is authorised to enter the premises with applicant representatives and remove the machines.