Trinexus Construction (Pty) Ltd v Bellator Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (1407/2023 ; 1348/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 907 (10 August 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 907 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Trinexus Construction (Pty) Ltd v Bellator Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (1407/2023 ; 1348/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 907 (10 August 2025) Trinexus Construction (Pty) Ltd v Bellator Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another (1407/2023 ; 1348/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 907 (10 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_907.html sino date 10 August 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: 1407/2023 (1) REPORTABLE: YES /NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES /NO (3) REVISED. DATE: 10/08/25 SIGNATURE: In the matter between: TRINEXUS CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD Plaintiff and BELLATOR CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD First Defendant HENDRIK JOHANNES ESTERHUIZEN Second Defendant Case No: 1348/2023 AND In the matter between: M AND S (PTY) LTD t/a BUILD-IT NORTHRIDING Plaintiff And BELLATOR CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD First Defendant HENDRIK JOHANNES ESTERHUIZEN Second Defendant Delivered : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by e-mail. The date for the handing down of the judgment shall be deemed to be 11 August 2025. JUDGMENT MERVYN M RIP, AJ: INTRODUCTION [1]        I must immediately apologise for the delay in handing down this judgement. [2]        This is an application for summary judgement. The two matters were heard and argued together and consequently I will deliver one judgement in respect of the two matters. The first defendant was liquidated after the institution of the action and the only defendant that is before court is the second defendant who stood as surety for the obligations of the first defendant. [3]        In the opposing affidavit filed by the Second Defendant, the Second Defendant raises a number of technical disputes relating to the claim. Such disputes include reliance on a purported oral agreement that allegedly preceded the written agreement. Also claims in respect of interest claimed by the Plaintiff, that the Defendant claims cannot be allowed. [4]        The second defendant raises the issue of non-joinder. This is based upon the fact that the written agreement on which each of the plaintiffs rely in the respective claims that I am dealing with, also has the names of other companies on the application for credit form. The second defendant argues that all of the companies named on the application for credit need to be joined, it would seem in the same action, to cover the format of the application for credit. The plaintiff states that this is not a requirement since the form is used by different companies and only the company that relies upon it is claiming the amount for payment. [5]        I do not see on what basis the other companies whose name happened to be on the application for credit need to be joined to the proceedings. It is clearly pleaded that the Plaintiff companies, in each instance, is the company that supplied the goods to the First Defendant and there is no basis that anyone else has a direct or substantial interest in this matter. I find that the joinder point has no merit. [6]        In respect of the actual amount claimed as being owing, there is no real defence raised. In fact the defence seems to be that the Defendants cannot say how much is owing due to the fact that documentation that they believe is necessary to work out how much is owing, if anything, has not been given to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. This notwithstanding requests for such documentation. The fact that the goods as described were delivered by the respective Plaintiffs is not denied. [7]        In my view such bald and sketchy allegations are simply not sufficient to deal with the amount that is claimed to be owing. One would expect a defendant to have records of what has been paid and when such amounts were paid to the Plaintiff. The Defendant cannot simply state that it is not possible to determine what is owing to the Plaintiff because the Plaintiff must show through documentation how these amounts are made up. This type of narrative is in my view a classic example of the many instances where our Courts have stated that bald and sketchy explanations and defences are not sufficient to stave off summary judgement. [8]        It is clear from the narrative that has been given by the Deponent, the second Defendant, that there was a business relationship between the First Defendant, run and managed by the Second Defendant, and the respective Plaintiffs. It is clear that the First defendant did in fact receive goods from the Plaintiff for the purposes of its construction business. Such relationship is in fact common cause. [9]        The Second Defendant further claims that the money is not payable in terms of an oral agreement that requires the First Defendant to receive payment for the construction work that it did before it became liable to pay for the goods received from the Plaintiff. Such agreement, apart from again being vague, bald and sketchy does not accord with the written terms of the agreement relied upon by the Plaintiffs. [10]      In this regard the very well-known authorities of Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T) and Maharaj v Barclays National Bank 1976 (1) SA 418 (A) find application. It is further stated that any defence must be a defence that is good in law. The oral agreement defence contradicts the written agreement between the parties and is in any event described in bald and sketchy averments. No details of when, how, with whom exactly and where this oral agreement was entered into. [11] Considering all that was placed before I am not satisfied that the Second Defendant has provided a bona tide defence in either of the aforementioned matters, ORDER: In the circumstances, I grant summary judgement as follows in favour of the Plaintiffs in the following terms: IN Case No: 1407/2023 1.         Payment in the amount of R324 081.80 ; 2.         Interest on the amount of R324 081.80 at a rate of 10.5% per annum, from 19 January 2023 to date of final payment; 3.         Costs of suit, including the costs of the summary judgment application, unopposed attorney and client scale. In Case No: 1348/2023 4.         Payment in the amount of R 1 281 745.47 ; 5.         Interest on the amount of R 1 281 745.47 at a rate of 10.5% per annum, from 19 January 2023 to date of final payment; 6.         Costs of suit, including the costs of the summary judgment application, unopposed attorney and client scale. MERVYN M RIP ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA Hearing date:           9 September 2024 Judgment date:        10 August 2025 Counsel for the Plaintiff:                Adv J Schoeman Plaintiffs' Attorneys:                       Nixon & Collins Attorneys. Counsel for the 2 nd Defendant:     Adv HP Wessels 2 nd Defendant's Attorneys:            Delberg Attorneys sino noindex make_database footer start