Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd; E and D Security Systems CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd (3670/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 28; 2020 (6) SA 624 (WCC) (30 April 2020)

Tumileng Trading CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd; E and D Security Systems CC v National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd (3670/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 28; 2020 (6) SA 624 (WCC) (30 April 2020)

The court held that the defendant's opposing affidavits failed to meet the requirements of rule 32(3)(b), as they did not disclose any material facts substantiating the alleged defences of defective workmanship or reputational harm. The defendant's reliance on clause 6.3.4 was unsupported by particulars, and no counterclaim was formulated despite repeated assertions. The plaintiffs' claims for unpaid commission up to February 2019 were found to be liquidated, based on monthly commission amounts readily ascertainable from records. The court found no bona fide defence advanced by the defendant and granted summary judgment for the liquidated amounts claimed. However, claims for ongoing...

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 28
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
30 April 2020
Case Number
3670/2019
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Hearing and Determination of Summary Judgment Applications Under Amended Rule 32
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of both plaintiffs for the liquidated commission amounts claimed; claims for ongoing commission payments referred to trial.
Judges
A.G. Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Commission, Specific Performance, Liquidated Claim, Rule 32 Amendment
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Commission Specific Performance Liquidated Claim Rule 32 Amendment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tumileng Trading CC

Applicant

E & D Security Systems CC

Applicant

National Security and Fire (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Hearing and Determination of Summary Judgment Applications Under Amended Rule 32

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has disclosed a bona fide defence to the plaintiffs' claims for commission under agency agreements.
  2. 2 Whether the amended rule 32 alters the substantive requirements for summary judgment applications.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' claims for ongoing commission payments constitute liquidated claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's opposing affidavits failed to meet the requirements of rule 32(3)(b), as they did not disclose any material facts substantiating the alleged defences of defective workmanship or reputational harm. The defendant's reliance on clause 6.3.4 was unsupported by particulars, and no counterclaim was formulated despite repeated assertions. The plaintiffs' claims for unpaid commission up to February 2019 were found to be liquidated, based on monthly commission amounts readily ascertainable from records. The court found no bona fide defence advanced by the defendant and granted summary judgment for the liquidated amounts claimed. However, claims for ongoing...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of both plaintiffs for the liquidated commission amounts claimed; claims for ongoing commission payments referred to trial.

Orders

  • Summary judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff Tumileng Trading CC in the sum of R1,063,640.40, together with interest a tempore morae at 10.25% per annum on the constituent monthly amounts of R70,897.36 from the dates upon which each such amount fell due during the period 31 December 2017 to 28 February...
  • The defendant is ordered to pay Tumileng Trading CC's costs of suit incurred to date of this judgment.