Sonqishe v Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan (74042/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 962 (11 August 2015)

Sonqishe v Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan (74042/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 962 (11 August 2015)

The court found that the applicant's evidence of payment via bank guaranteed cheques to the respondent's employees was undisputed and corroborated by documentary evidence. The respondent's defence, based on hearsay and unsupported allegations of fraud involving a third party, was rejected as implausible and inadmissible. The respondent was contractually obliged to deliver the vehicle or, upon cancellation, to repay the deposit. The respondent's failure to do so entitled the applicant to repayment with interest. The court further held that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order due to the lack of substantiated defence and the improbability of its version.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 962
Parties
Applicant: Tando Sonqishe; Respondent: Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 August 2015
Case Number
74042/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Repayment of Deposit
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
H.J Fabricius
Legal Topics
Contract Cancellation, Deposit Repayment, Inadmissible Hearsay, Scope of Employment
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Contract Cancellation Deposit Repayment Inadmissible Hearsay Scope of Employment

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tando Sonqishe

Applicant

Willy Black Motors (Pty) Ltd t/a Delmas Nissan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Repayment of Deposit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant made payment of R1.1 million to the respondent for the purchase of a motor vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is contractually liable to repay the deposit after cancellation of the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defence based on alleged fraud and hearsay is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's evidence of payment via bank guaranteed cheques to the respondent's employees was undisputed and corroborated by documentary evidence. The respondent's defence, based on hearsay and unsupported allegations of fraud involving a third party, was rejected as implausible and inadmissible. The respondent was contractually obliged to deliver the vehicle or, upon cancellation, to repay the deposit. The respondent's failure to do so entitled the applicant to repayment with interest. The court further held that the respondent's conduct warranted a punitive costs order due to the lack of substantiated defence and the improbability of its version.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • Respondent is to repay the applicant the amount of R1.1 million.
  • Interest on the sum of R1.1 million at the rate of 15.5% per annum to the date of payment in full, calculated as follows: on R300,000 from 9 April 2014; on R30,000 from 23 April 2014; on R420,000 from 26 June 2014; on R350,000 from 21 July 2014.