The appellant instituted action in the Magistrate’s Court against the respondents based on three claims: (1) payment of rental under an oral commercial lease for June 2002 to December 2003; (2) various amounts arising from a deed of sale of immovable property, including instalments of the purchase price, occupational consideration, municipal rates and taxes, interest, and legal fees; and (3) ejectment of the respondents following cancellation of the deed of sale. The respondents entered an appearance to defend, and the appellant applied for summary judgment on all claims. The magistrate granted summary judgment in full. On appeal, the High Court (Pietermaritzburg) set aside the summary judgment. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced as follows: (1) Claim one – the respondents’ appeal against summary judgment was dismissed with costs; (2) Claim two – summary judgment was granted only for payment of R11 751.91 (occupational consideration), R19 575.95 (rates and taxes), and costs, with leave to defend the balance relating to the purchase price, interest and legal fees; (3) Claim three – the respondents’ appeal was dismissed with costs and summary judgment for ejectment confirmed. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
The case clarifies the approach to summary judgment in South African civil procedure, emphasising that courts should not refuse summary judgment on irrelevant or speculative grounds and that defendants must disclose a bona fide defence. It also illustrates the consequences of cancellation of a deed of sale on claims for the purchase price versus accrued obligations such as occupational consideration and municipal charges.