Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Limited and Others v Selebogo Incorporated and Another (2022/001657) [2025] ZAGPJHC 491 (21 May 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 491
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- L Putter
- Case number
- 2022/001657
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- L Putter
- Case number
- 2022/001657
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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 AucampFintech Underwriting (Pty) Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: S AucampSunlyn (Pty) Limited
Plaintiff Counsel: S AucampSelebogo Incorporated
DefendantSelebogo, Tsheboeng Beatrice
Defendant03
Procedural history
Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment against the defendants.
- 02
Whether the defendants have a bona fide defence to the plaintiffs' claims.
- 03
Whether the cancellation of the rental agreements and repossession of equipment are triable 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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
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.
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.