Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd and Another v Thavalerie Travel CC and Another (2022/11927) [2025] ZAGPJHC 573 (10 June 2025)
The court found that the defendants failed to raise any genuine triable issue to resist summary judgment. Jurisdiction was established as the agreements were accepted in Johannesburg. The second defendant is liable under the guarantees, which were unlimited and contained certificate clauses and renunciation of benefits. The impossibility of performance defence was rejected as it was not absolute or objective and contradicted by the timeline of deregistration and lockdown. The National Credit Act does not apply because ownership did not pass to the lessee and no interest or deferred payment was provided for. The certificates of indebtedness were accepted as prima facie evidence, and the...
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 573
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd; Defendant: Thavalerie Travel CC; Defendant: Mhlalisi, Nonthutuzelo Valerie
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 June 2025
- Case Number
- 2022/11927
- Procedural Posture
- Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment; Judgment Delivered After Oral Argument and Further Heads of Argument.
- Outcome
- Summary judgment granted against the second defendant in favour of both plaintiffs for the amounts claimed, with interest and costs.
- Judges
- Maier-Frawley
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Guarantee Liability, Certificate of Indebtedness, Jurisdiction, National Credit Act, Impossibility of Performance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Technologies Acceptances Receivables (Pty) Ltd
Plaintiff
South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd
Plaintiff
Thavalerie Travel CC
Defendant
Mhlalisi, Nonthutuzelo Valerie
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Opposed Summary Judgment; Judgment Delivered After Oral Argument and Further Heads of Argument.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants have raised a genuine triable issue to resist summary judgment.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter given the location of contract conclusion.
- 3 Whether the second defendant is liable under the guarantees for the amounts claimed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants failed to raise any genuine triable issue to resist summary judgment. Jurisdiction was established as the agreements were accepted in Johannesburg. The second defendant is liable under the guarantees, which were unlimited and contained certificate clauses and renunciation of benefits. The impossibility of performance defence was rejected as it was not absolute or objective and contradicted by the timeline of deregistration and lockdown. The National Credit Act does not apply because ownership did not pass to the lessee and no interest or deferred payment was provided for. The certificates of indebtedness were accepted as prima facie evidence, and the...
Court Disposition
Summary judgment granted against the second defendant in favour of both plaintiffs for the amounts claimed, with interest and costs.
Orders
- Summary judgment is granted against the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff for payment of R11,158.64, interest at 5% above prime from 30 December 2021 to final payment, and costs on the Magistrates Court scale as between attorney and client.
- Summary judgment is granted against the second defendant in favour of the first plaintiff for payment of R104,009.98, interest at 5% above prime from 30 December 2021 to final payment, and costs on the Magistrates Court scale as between attorney and client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment