Sasfin Bank Limited v Delvex 52 CC and Another (2024/036047) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1006 (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 1006 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Sasfin Bank Limited v Delvex 52 CC and Another (2024/036047) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1006 (6 October 2025) Sasfin Bank Limited v Delvex 52 CC and Another (2024/036047) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1006 (6 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_1006.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: 2024-036047 1. Reportable:  No 2. Of interest to other judges: No 3. Revised 6 October 2025 WRIGHT J In the matter between: SASFIN BANK LIMITED                                                       APPLICANT and DELVEX 52 CC                                                                      FIRST RESPONDENT FAUL, JOHANN LOURENS                                                  SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J 1.  Crisply put, in this application for summary judgment, the first respondent, Delvex leased certain security equipment from a lessor. The second respondent, Mr Faul guaranteed the debt. The applicant, Sasfin sues as plaintiff and as cessionary of the rights previously enjoyed by the cedent. Sasfin alleges that Delvex breached the agreement by non-payment. Sasfin seeks arrear amounts allegedly owing and it seeks the return of the equipment as owner. 2.  In the plea, it is raised as a defence that the relevant agreement was induced by fraud. Giving chapter and verse, it is alleged that certain persons, acting on behalf of an entity known as Daisy and at least one of the cedents, fraudulently represented to the respondents that, while Delvex had previously bought certain security equipment from Panasonic, Daisy was “ taking over “ from Panasonic and that the respondents needed to sign documents so that an agreement could be concluded with Daisy. It is alleged that not only was the fraud material and about the identity of the other contracting party but also about the nature of the agreement. 3.  Before me now, Sasfin seeks summary judgment against Mr Faul for the alleged arrears, interest and costs. The affidavit opposing summary judgment, like the plea, raises a number of defences, including the one referred to above. 4.  In my view, a bona fide defence and triable issue are raised on the issue set out above. ORDER 1.  The second defendant is 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 JG Botha Instructed by                                  ODBB Attorneys lelanie@odbb.co.za 2nd RESPONDENT                        Adv P Griessel Instructed by                                  Herbie Oosthuizen and Associates hanno@holaw.co.za sino noindex make_database footer start