Securitas Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd v Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd (4591/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 299 (4 November 2022)

Securitas Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd v Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd (4591/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 299 (4 November 2022)

The court found that the respondent had raised bona fide defences and triable issues in both the plea and the opposing affidavit, including the existence of a tacit term, public policy concerns regarding Clause 5, and the validity of the contract. The court held that it is not required to determine the probability of success of these defences at the summary judgment stage, but only whether they are bona fide and good in law. As the respondent disclosed sufficient material facts and grounds for its defences, the application for summary judgment could not succeed. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 299
Parties
Applicant: Securitas Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2022
Case Number
4591/2021
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Application for summary judgment dismissed.
Judges
Mthimunye AJ
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Damages, Termination of Contract, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Damages Termination of Contract Bona Fide Defence

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securitas Specialised Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Down Touch Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has raised a bona fide defence or triable issue to resist summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's claim is liquidated and enforceable under the contract.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defences in the plea and affidavit are valid and sufficient to defeat summary judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had raised bona fide defences and triable issues in both the plea and the opposing affidavit, including the existence of a tacit term, public policy concerns regarding Clause 5, and the validity of the contract. The court held that it is not required to determine the probability of success of these defences at the summary judgment stage, but only whether they are bona fide and good in law. As the respondent disclosed sufficient material facts and grounds for its defences, the application for summary judgment could not succeed. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the respondent and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.