Global Road Binders (Pty) Ltd v Melanin INK (Pty) Ltd (2023/040831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 59 (15 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 59 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Global Road Binders (Pty) Ltd v Melanin INK (Pty) Ltd (2023/040831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 59 (15 August 2025) Global Road Binders (Pty) Ltd v Melanin INK (Pty) Ltd (2023/040831) [2025] ZAGPJHC 59 (15 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_59.html sino date 15 August 2025 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case 2023-040831 (1)  REPORTABLE: No (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: No (3)  REVISED: Yes Date:      15 August 2025 In the matter between: GLOBAL ROAD BINDERS (PTY) LTD Applicant and MELANIN INK (PTY) LTD (Registration number: 2017/012474/07) Respondent JUDGMENT DU PLESSIS J # Introduction Introduction [1]  This is an application for summary judgment. The claim arises from goods sold and delivered by the applicant to the respondent pursuant to a partially oral agreement. The applicant alleges that the material terms, that are not in dispute, were that: a.  the respondent would receive payment from its customers for products supplied by the applicant; and b.  upon receipt of such payment, the respondent would pay the applicant, retaining only its agreed commission. [2]  The applicant alleges that the respondent has failed to make payment of R455 593.41 in respect of unpaid invoices, despite demand, and despite previous invoices sent on the same terms being paid for about two years. [3]  The respondent’s plea disputes the applicant’s version of the oral agreement and pleads alternative terms. The pleaded terms do not change the applicant’s entitlement to payment. It thus fails to set out how those alternative terms would excuse the respondent’s liability for payment of the invoices. No factual basis is pleaded to establish a bona fide defence. [4] In its affidavit opposing summary judgment, the respondent does not meaningfully engage with the substance of the invoices or allege any dispute as to the correctness of the amounts claimed. Nor is any evidence produced of payment, set off, or other extinguishment of the debt. In SA Retail Properties (Pty) Limited v Viroshen Trading Enterprises CC [1] the court clarified that [2] “ [14] Rule 32(3)(b) requires an opposing affidavit to fully disclose the nature and grounds of the defence, and the material facts on which it is based- one which satisfies the court that there is a bona fide defence to the action, which, if proved at trial, will constitute an answer to the plaintiff ’s claim […]. [15] A defendant must go beyond the mere formulation of disputes and must disclose the grounds upon which he disputes the plaintiff’s claim with reference to the material facts underlying the dispute raised […]. [16] The Supreme Court of Appeal, in the case of Joob Joob Investments v Stocks Mavundla (2009) All SA 407 (SCA) at para 32 held that summary judgment is no longer “extraordinary” and that the Rule must be applied properly. The Rule requires of the Defendant to set out his defence, disclose fully the nature and grounds of his defence and the material facts on which it is based.” [5]  The onus rests on the respondent to satisfy the court that it has a bona fide defence and to disclose fully the nature and grounds thereof, together with the material facts relied upon. Merely alleging different terms of the agreement, which include a term of payment, without stating how this is a defence to the applicant’s claim, is insufficient. As are bald denials or general allegations. [6]  The plea and opposing affidavit do not disclose any triable issue. The respondent has failed to meet the threshold required to resist summary judgment. [7]  Accordingly, the applicant has established its entitlement to summary judgment ## Order Order [8]  The following order is made: 1.  Summary judgment is granted in favour of the applicant against the respondent. CLAIM A 2.  Payment in the amount of R455 593.41. 3.  Interest on the amount in para 2, at the prescribed rate of interest from date of service of summons (8 July 2023) to date of final payment. 4.  The respondent is to pay the applicant’s cost, with counsel’s costs to be taxed on scale A. WJ du Plessis Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg Date of hearing: 13 August 2025 Date of judgment: 15 August 2025 For the applicant: R Putzier instructed by MaCartney Attorneys For the respondent: No appearance, attorneys of record withdrew on 12 June 2024. [1] [2021] ZAGPJHC 775. [2] Paragraph 14 – 16. sino noindex make_database footer start