Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Limited and Others v Selebogo Incorporated and Another (2022/001657) [2025] ZAGPJHC 491 (21 May 2025)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the issues of cancellation of the rental agreements and the repossession of the equipment are genuine and triable disputes. The defendants have raised defences that cannot be dismissed summarily, including the validity of the termination and the effect of the arbitration clause. The summary judgment procedure is not intended to deprive a party of a trial where a sustainable defence exists. Accordingly, summary judgment is refused and the defendants are granted leave to defend.

Court disposition

Summary judgment refused; defendants granted leave to defend.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is refused.
  • The defendants are granted leave to defend.
  • Costs in respect of summary judgment are to be costs in the cause.

02

Material facts

Parties

Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff Counsel: S Aucamp

Fintech Underwriting (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff Counsel: S Aucamp

Sunlyn (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff Counsel: S Aucamp

Selebogo Incorporated

Defendant

Selebogo, Tsheboeng Beatrice

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The plaintiffs contend that the defendants entered into rental agreements for office automation equipment and failed to meet their obligations, justifying summary judgment. They argue that the restructuring of the agreements occurred and that the defendants' termination was invalid. The plaintiffs maintain that the equipment was lawfully repossessed and that the defendants have no sustainable defence.
Respondent
The defendants admit entering into the rental agreements but assert that they were lawfully terminated on 9 November 2020, as evidenced by the termination letter. They claim the plaintiffs repossessed the equipment and raise special pleas regarding jurisdiction and the arbitration clause. The defendants argue that the cancellation and repossession are genuine disputes requiring trial and that summary judgment is inappropriate.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court

    Summary judgment should only be granted where the plaintiff's case is unassailable and the defendant has no sustainable defence.

  2. 02

    Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA)

    The rationale of summary judgment procedures is not to deprive a litigant of a trial where a sustainable defence is raised.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the issues of cancellation of the rental agreements and the repossession of the equipment are genuine and triable disputes. The defendants have raised defences that cannot be dismissed summarily, including the validity of the termination and the effect of the arbitration clause. The summary judgment procedure is not intended to deprive a party of a trial where a sustainable defence exists. Accordingly, summary judgment is refused and the defendants are granted leave to defend.

Obiter and limits

  • Jurisdiction and the effect of the arbitration clause are matters to be determined at trial.
  • The summary judgment procedure must be applied cautiously to avoid injustice to defendants who raise bona fide disputes.

Court disposition

Summary judgment refused; defendants granted leave to defend.

  • Summary judgment is refused.
  • The defendants are granted leave to defend.
  • Costs in respect of summary judgment 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.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2025] ZAGPJHC 491

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION,

JOHANNESBURG

CASE NUMBER: 2022-001657

(1) REPORTABLE: NO

(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

(3) REVISED.

L PUTTER AJ Date: 21 MAY 2025

In the matter between:

TECHNOLOGIES ACCEPTANCES RECEIVABLES (PTY) LIMITED First Plaintiff

FINTECH UNDERWRITING (PTY) LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

SUNLYN (PTY)

LIMITED

Third Plaintiff

and

SELEBOGO

INCORPORATED

First Defendant

SELEBOGO,

TSHEBOENG BEATRICE

Second Defendant

This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' and/or the parties' representatives by email and by being uploaded onto CaseLines. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be on 22 May 2025.

ORDER

Having heard Counsel for the parties and having read the papers, it is Ordered that:

1. Summary judgment is hereby refused.

2. The defendants are granted leave to defend.

3. Costs in respect of summary judgment are to be costs in the cause.

By order,

REGISTRAR

JUDGMENT

PUTTER AJ:

introduction

[1] The first plaintiff in this matter is Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Limited. The second plaintiff is Fintech Underwriting (Pty) Limited and the third plaintiff is Sunlyn (Pty) Limited.

[2] The first defendant is Selebogo Incorporated, a firm of attorneys and the second defendant is Ms Selebogo, an admitted attorney.

[3] On 19 July 2017, 8 May 2018 and 30 July 2018 the defendants entered into several rental agreements (“Rental Agreements”) with the third plaintiff in respect of what is referred to in the agreements as “Office Automation Equipment” which the defendants used in the conduct of their business activities. In the pleadings, the equipment is referred to as 3 printing machines and a PABX system.

[4] Although the defendants merely noted in the Plea that the Rental Agreements were entered into, and denied that the restructuring as pleaded by the plaintiffs took place, the defendants’ legal adviser in his heads of argument accepted that the defendants entered into the Rental Agreements.

[5] Although several Special Pleas were raised by the defendants, it was specifically stated by the Defendants’ that the Rental

Agreements were terminated on 9 November 2020, as appears from the termination letter attached to the Plea.[1]

[6] The termination letter further records that three printing machines and the PABX system were removed from the defendants’ premises, by the Plaintiffs’.

[7] From the affidavits filed in support of the summary judgment application, it is clear that this dispute between the parties relates to the defendants’ rights to cancellation as well as the rights flowing therefrom and the plaintiffs’ repossession of the equipment in the “beginning of 2020”.

[8] Although, in addition thereto, the defendants raised a Special Plea in respect of jurisdiction wherein it contested the specific jurisdiction of this Court, as well the effect of the arbitration clause in the Rental Agreements, these are issues to be ventilated at trial.

[9] I am of the view that the cancellation and effect of the repossession of the equipment are triable issues which fly in the face of a summary judgment application. In respect of these issues, and given summary judgment procedures, I cannot find that the plaintiffs have an unassailable case with regards to their claims. I am therefore not prepared to close the door of the

Court to the defendants without a trial. It is trite that the rationale of summary judgment procedures is not to deprive a litigant of a trial where he/she has a sustainable defence.

L PUTTER

Acting Judge of the High Court

Gauteng Division, Johannesburg

Heard: 21 November 2024

Judgment: 22 May 2025

Appearances:

For Plaintiffs:

S AUCAMP

Instructed by: Smit Jones & Pratt

E-mail: Winterton@sjp.co.za

grobler@sjp.co.za

Ref: SAS7/0814 Mr C Winterton/hg

For Defendants:

Instructed by:

G W MSHELE ATTORNEYS

Care of BALOYI ATTORNEYS

E-mail: gwm607@gmail.com

enquiries@gwmattorneys.co.za

[1] Caselines: 01-248; Annexure S1, letter dated 9 November 2020.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA)

Case cited

Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.