Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd and Another v Clear Road Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Another (2021/58172) [2025] ZAGPJHC 145 (17 February 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 145
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2021/58172
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 2021/58172
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the affidavit resisting summary judgment, deposed to by Mr Menong, set out a detailed and plausible defence. The circumstances described, including the signing of blank documents and the involvement of a third party (On Point), raised sufficient doubt regarding the applicants' claims and the enforceability of the guarantee and cession agreements. In light of this, the application for summary judgment could not succeed, and the defendants were granted leave to defend.
Court disposition
Application for summary judgment dismissed; defendants granted leave to defend.
Orders
- The defendants are granted leave to defend.
- Costs are to be costs in the cause.
02
Material facts
Parties
Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv BC BesterSasfin Bank Limited
Applicant Counsel: Adv BC BesterClear Road Financial Services (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv QM DzimbaEvans Mahoko Menong
Respondent Counsel: Adv QM Dzimba03
Procedural history
Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the defendants have raised a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application.
- 02
Whether the guarantee and cession agreements are enforceable against the defendants.
- 03
Whether the circumstances surrounding the signing of documents by Mr Menong constitute a valid defence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants allege that Sunlyn ceded future debts to Sasfin and that Sunlyn hired a PABX device to Clear Road, with Mr Menong guaranteeing Clear Road's debt. They claim Clear Road is in arrears and seek summary judgment for the outstanding amounts, arguing that the guarantee and cession agreements are valid and enforceable.
- Respondent
- The respondents, through Mr Menong, contend that he was approached by On Point, signed blank documents under the impression he was contracting with On Point, and was promised a reduced phone bill. The product and service delivered were substandard, and inflated accounts were received from the applicants. The respondents argue that these circumstances constitute a bona fide defence and dispute liability under the guarantee and cession agreements.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court
A defendant may resist summary judgment by disclosing facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a bona fide defence.
- 02
Maharaj v Barclays National Bank Ltd 1976 (1) SA 418 (A)
Summary judgment should not be granted where the defendant's affidavit sets out a plausible and detailed defence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the affidavit resisting summary judgment, deposed to by Mr Menong, set out a detailed and plausible defence. The circumstances described, including the signing of blank documents and the involvement of a third party (On Point), raised sufficient doubt regarding the applicants' claims and the enforceability of the guarantee and cession agreements. In light of this, the application for summary judgment could not succeed, and the defendants were granted leave to defend.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the practice of signing blank documents is fraught with risk and can give rise to genuine disputes of fact.
- The involvement of third parties in contractual negotiations may complicate the enforceability of agreements.
Court disposition
Application for summary judgment dismissed; defendants granted leave to defend.
- The defendants are granted leave to defend.
- Costs are to be costs in the cause.
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
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2021/58172
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
17 February 2025
SUNLYN (PTY)
LTD
FIRST APPLICANT
(Registration Number: 1988/000417/07)
SASFIN BANK
LIMITED
SECOND APPLICANT
(Registration Number: 1951/002280/06)
and
CLEAR ROAD FINANCIAL SERVICES (PTY) LTD
FIRST RESPONDENT
(Registration Number: 2013/028963/07)
EVANS MAHOKO
MENONG
SECOND RESPONDENT
(Identity Number: 7[…])
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The first plaintiff, Sunlyn and the second plaintiff, Sasfin issued summons against the first defendant, Clear Road and the second defendant, Mr Menong. In the particulars of claim it is alleged that as long ago as 2006 Sunlyn ceded to Sasfin future debts that would become owing to Sunlyn.
The particulars of claim allege that during 2019, Sunlyn hired a PABX device to Clear Road and that Mr Menong guaranteed the debt of Clear Road to Sunlyn. It is alleged that Clear Road is in arrears.
3. The prayers in the particulars of claim allege that “The second plaintiff, alternatively the First Plaintiff, claims from the First and Second Defendants…..”
4. A plea was filed and the plaintiffs now seek summary judgment.
5. The affidavit resisting summary judgment is deposed to by Mr Menong, a financial planner for Clear Road. Like the plea, the affidavit sets out in considerable detail that Mr Menong was approached by an entity called On Point which got him to sign blank documents and promised a reduced phone bill. Mr Menong thought that he was contracting with On Point. The product and service were well below that promised and inflated accounts then started arriving from the present applicants.
6. With this detailed and plausible defence, the application fails.
ORDER
1. The defendants are granted leave to defend, costs in the cause.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD: 17 February 2025
DELIVERED: 17 February 2025
APPEARANCES:
Applicants Adv BC Bester
074 204 1064
ben@lawcircle.co.za
Instructed by VAN
WYK ATTORNEYS
012 004 2417
mara@vanwyklegal.co.za
Respondent Adv QM Dzimba
0744611259
qhawe@law.co.za
Instructed by KOBRAS ATTORNEYS INC.
011 333 0000
bkobras@kobrasattorneys.co.za
info@kobrasattorneys.co.za
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.