South Africa Case Law

Engen Petroleum Limited v AAc Agri Foods CC and Another (4057/2013)

Engen Petroleum Limited v AAc Agri Foods CC and Another (4057/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 57 (24 April 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4057/2013

Judge

Motloung, AJ

The court found that the affidavit supporting the summary judgment application did not comply with Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The deponent, employed by Engen SA, failed to demonstrate sufficient personal knowledge of the transactions conducted by Engen Lesotho, the original creditor. There was no causal link established between the accounts of Engen Lesotho and Engen SA, and the supporting documents did not adequately verify the amount claimed or the underlying transactions. The absence of invoices and reliance on computer print-outs and certificates of balance from Engen SA we…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Personal Knowledge Requirement
• Cession Of Claim
• Suretyship Liability

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Vitex Investments 878 CC and Another (2012/14278)

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO v Vitex Investments 878 CC and Another (2012/14278) [2012] ZAGPJHC 273 (26 October 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2012/14278

Judge

A C Dodson

High Court summary judgment case on a loan, indemnity bond, suretyship, and certificate of balance, where the defendants’ counterclaim and procedural objections failed.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Mortgage Bond
• Certificate Of Indebtedness
• Counterclaim
• Personal Knowledge Requirement

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Trustees for the time being Huganel Trust and Others (17121/2011)

Firstrand Bank Ltd v Trustees for the time being Huganel Trust and Others (17121/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 487; 2012 (3) SA 167 (WCC); [2012] 2 All SA 422 (WCC) (15 November 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17121/2011

Judge

D M Davis

The court found that the plaintiff's deponent, Mr Botha, did not possess sufficient personal knowledge of the material facts underlying the contractual relationship and alleged variations, which were central to the defence raised by the defendants. The defendants' version, supported by evidence of negotiations and payments, introduced factual disputes that could not be resolved solely by reference to documents under Mr Botha's control. The requirements of Rule 32(2) of the Uniform Rules of Court demand that the deponent must be able to verify the cause of action and amount claimed with person…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Personal Knowledge Requirement
• Loan Agreement
• Suretyship
• Variation Of Contract

GWK Prop (Edms) Bpk v Salut La Vie (Edms) Bpk (2094/2010)

GWK Prop (Edms) Bpk v Salut La Vie (Edms) Bpk (2094/2010) [2010] ZANCHC 16 (21 May 2010)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2094/2010

Judge

Olivier R

Summary judgment was granted for commission on the sale of immovable property after the defendant failed to show a bona fide defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Commission Claim
• Oral Agency Agreement
• Personal Knowledge Requirement
• Pleading Requirements
• Real Estate Transaction