Van Heerden v Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd (5964/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 106 (21 June 2018)

Van Heerden v Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd (5964/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 106 (21 June 2018)

The Plaintiff's affidavit in support of summary judgment failed to comply with Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it merely 'confirmed' rather than 'verified' the cause of action and amount claimed, and did not properly state that in the deponent's opinion there was no bona fide defence. This defect is material and cannot be cured by the Defendant's engagement with the merits. The Defendant provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of its opposing affidavit and disclosed a bona fide, triable defence regarding the nature of the coins purchased, the payments made, and the existence of a counterclaim. The court found that it would be unjust to grant summary judgment in...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 106
Parties
Plaintiff: Carl Jacobus Van Heerden; Defendant: Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
5964/2017
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing of Opposing Affidavit
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; condonation for late filing of opposing affidavit granted; Defendant given leave to defend.
Judges
I Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Condonation, Oral Contract, Verification of Affidavit, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Condonation Oral Contract Verification of Affidavit Bona Fide Defence

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Jacobus Van Heerden

Plaintiff

Scoin Trading (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / Application for Summary Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing of Opposing Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff's affidavit in support of summary judgment complies with Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant has provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of its opposing affidavit and disclosed a bona fide defence.
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted in light of the alleged defects and the merits of the defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff's affidavit in support of summary judgment failed to comply with Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court, as it merely 'confirmed' rather than 'verified' the cause of action and amount claimed, and did not properly state that in the deponent's opinion there was no bona fide defence. This defect is material and cannot be cured by the Defendant's engagement with the merits. The Defendant provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of its opposing affidavit and disclosed a bona fide, triable defence regarding the nature of the coins purchased, the payments made, and the existence of a counterclaim. The court found that it would be unjust to grant summary judgment in...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; condonation for late filing of opposing affidavit granted; Defendant given leave to defend.

Orders

  • The late delivery of the opposing affidavit to the summary judgment application is condoned.
  • Defendant is given leave to defend the action.