Pendigo Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd v Icollege (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/027981) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1000 (6 October 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 1000 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Pendigo Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd v Icollege (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/027981) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1000 (6 October 2025) Pendigo Trade and Invest (Pty) Ltd v Icollege (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/027981) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1000 (6 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1000.html sino date 6 October 2025 ###### IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO:   2024-027981 1. Reportable: No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised 6 October 2025 WRIGHT J In the matter between: PENDIGO TRADE AND INVEST (Pty) LTD                        APPLICANT and ICOLLEGE (Pty) LTD                                                          FIRST RESPONDENT RENEE LEWIS                                                                     SECOND RESPONDENT SANMAREE WILLEMSE                                                     THIRD RESPONDENT DEREK LE ROUX                                                                FOURTH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J 1.  Broadly stated, the applicant, Pendigo sues as cessionary of the rights of a lessor of certain IT equipment hired by the first respondent. The applicant alleges non-payment. It seeks from the first respondent the balance allegedly outstanding and it seeks the return of the goods. The other respondents are sued as guarantors. 2.  A plea was filed in which it is raised, among other defences, that the equipment delivered was not in accordance with the agreement and had been decommissioned. 3.  The applicant now seeks summary judgment. In the affidavit resisting summary judgment the defence pleaded is elaborated on in some detail. Reference is made to serial numbers, showing that the equipment forming the subject matter of the claim had been decommissioned and removed by the plaintiff. 4.  In my view, a bona fide defence is raised. ORDER 1.  The respondents are granted leave to defend, costs in the cause. GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD: 6 October 2025 DELIVERED: 6 October 2025 APPEARANCES: APPLICANT Adv JJ Du Randt Instructed by Jay Mothobi Inc renchi@jay.co.za RESPONDENTS Adv D Maritz Instructed by Heckroodt and Associates hannah@heckroodtlegal.com sino noindex make_database footer start