Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd ; E & D Security Systems CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd (3670/2019; 3671/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 52 (15 June 2020)

Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd ; E & D Security Systems CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd (3670/2019; 3671/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 52 (15 June 2020)

The court found that the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits satisfied the requirements of rule 32(2)(b) by referencing the particulars of claim and succinctly confirming the factual basis for the claims. The claims were for liquidated amounts, as the recurring commissions were ascertainable from the parties' financial records. The defendant's defences lacked particularity and did not challenge the quantum of the claims. The novelty of the amended rule 32 did not, in itself, constitute a compelling reason for leave to appeal, especially in the absence of conflicting judgments. The test for summary judgment remains unchanged, and the defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence....

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Tumileng Trading CC; Applicant: E & D Security Systems CC; Respondent: National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 June 2020
Case Number
3670/2019; 3671/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rule 32 Amendment, Liquidated Amount, Supporting Affidavit Requirements
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Rule 32 Amendment Liquidated Amount Supporting Affidavit Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tumileng Trading CC

Applicant

E & D Security Systems CC

Applicant

National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits in the summary judgment applications complied with rule 32(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the claims were for a liquidated amount in money as required by rule 32(1)(b).
  3. 3 Whether the novelty of the amended rule 32 constitutes a compelling reason for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' supporting affidavits satisfied the requirements of rule 32(2)(b) by referencing the particulars of claim and succinctly confirming the factual basis for the claims. The claims were for liquidated amounts, as the recurring commissions were ascertainable from the parties' financial records. The defendant's defences lacked particularity and did not challenge the quantum of the claims. The novelty of the amended rule 32 did not, in itself, constitute a compelling reason for leave to appeal, especially in the absence of conflicting judgments. The test for summary judgment remains unchanged, and the defendant failed to disclose a bona fide defence....

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal are refused.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the applications.