Brand House (Pty) Ltd v Sasfin Bank Ltd; Brandhouse Beverages (Pty) Ltd v Sasfin Bank Ltd

Sasfin Bank Ltd, as cessionary of Clickrite Gauteng (Pty) Ltd, sued Brand House (Pty) Ltd and Brandhouse Beverages (Pty) Ltd for amounts allegedly owing in respect of goods sold and delivered. Sasfin applied for summary judgment in the Cape High Court, relying on trade creditor statements reflecting the alleged outstanding balances. The appellants opposed summary judgment, disputing Sasfin’s quantification of the debts and alleging that additional payments had been made which were not reflected in Sasfin’s statements. They attached a reconciliation statement indicating that Brand House was in credit and that Brandhouse Beverages was indebted only in a lesser, conceded amount. The High Court granted summary judgment against both appellants, finding that they had not disclosed a bona fide defence.

The appeals were allowed with costs. The High Court orders were set aside. In the Brand House matter, summary judgment was refused and leave to defend was granted, with costs reserved. In the Brandhouse Beverages matter, summary judgment was granted only for the conceded amount of R367 924.37 with interest, leave to defend was granted for the balance, and costs were reserved.

The case reaffirms the low threshold required to resist summary judgment in South African law and emphasises that courts should not conduct a trial of factual disputes at the summary judgment stage. It also clarifies that documentary evidence attached to an opposing affidavit is not inadmissible hearsay merely because the deponent is not its author, provided personal knowledge and verification are established.