Van Wyk Rautenbach v South Africa Sceuritation Programme Rf Ltd (45850/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1103 (29 October 2024)

Van Wyk Rautenbach v South Africa Sceuritation Programme Rf Ltd (45850/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1103 (29 October 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any substantive defence to the summary judgment application. The deponent to the respondent's affidavit complied with Rule 32(2), and the certificate of balance was properly authorised. The applicant's defence regarding the illegibility of the contract was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1103
Parties
Applicant: Rudolph Johannes Van Wyk Rautenbach; Respondent: South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd; Defendant: Daniel Francois Du Toit
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2024
Case Number
45850/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
N. S. Krüger
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rule 32, Guarantee Liability, Certificate of Balance, Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Rule 32 Guarantee Liability Certificate of Balance Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudolph Johannes Van Wyk Rautenbach

Applicant

South African Securitisation Programme RF Ltd

Respondent

Daniel Francois Du Toit

Defendant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deponent to the respondent's affidavit complied with Rule 32(2) requirements for summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the certificate of balance was properly authorised and acceptable as evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged illegibility of the written contract annexed to the particulars of claim constituted a valid defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish any substantive defence to the summary judgment application. The deponent to the respondent's affidavit complied with Rule 32(2), and the certificate of balance was properly authorised. The applicant's defence regarding the illegibility of the contract was unconvincing, as the contract was legible on CaseLines and the applicant had acknowledged receipt and awareness of its terms in the guarantee. The applicant's lack of involvement with the principal debtor did not constitute exceptional circumstances excusing his inability to plead. The grounds for leave to appeal did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal on the scale as between attorney and own client.