THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Case No: 102/2014
Reportable

In the matter between:

EURO BLITZ 21 (PTY) LTD
First Appellant
IVO BRANCO
Second Appellant

and

SECENA AIRCRAFT INVESTMENTS CC
Respondent

Neutral citation:
Euro Blitz 21 v Secena Aircraft Investments CC (102/14)
[2015] ZASCA 21 (19 March 2015)
Coram:
Maya, Majiedt, Pillay and Mbha JJA and Mayat AJA
Heard:
23 February 2015
Delivered:
19 March 2015
Summary:
Interest –whether words 'calculated daily' in court order
implied compound or simple interest – compound interest claimable only in
defined circumstances.

______________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________

On appeal from the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg (Kolbé AJ)
sitting as court of first instance):

1 The appeal is upheld with costs.
2 The order of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, is set aside and
replaced by the following order:
'(a) Having regard to the judgment of the additional Magistrate E de Klerk
dated 19 February 2009 under case number 2795/2006 in the Germiston
Magistrate's Court, it is declared that:
(i) Interest which accrues on the capital amount of R353 126.40 may
accumulate for the period from 24 March 2006 to 1 June 2012 and that the in
duplum rule is suspended for such period;
(ii) The in duplum rule shall apply to interest which accrues on the capital of
R353 126.40 and accrued interest thereon from 2 June 2012 to date of
payment;
(b) the respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the application until
date of delivery of its answering affidavit, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved;
(c) the remainder of the application is dismissed;
(d) the applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the application incurred
after the delivery of its answering affidavit.'
______________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________

Mbha JA (Maya, Majiedt and Pillay JJA and Mayat AJA concurring):

[1] This appeal concerns the proper interpretation and meaning of the
order given by the Magistrate's Court, Germiston (the trial court) dated 19
February 2009, in terms of which the appellants were ordered inter alia, to pay

the respondent '[i]nterest at prime plus 5% calculated daily with effect from
24/03/06 to date of payment.' The issue for determination is whether the
interest envisaged in the order was simple or compound interest. The South
Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, (Kolbé AJ) held that the words
'calculated daily' in the order permitted no other interpretation but that interest
was to be compounded daily. This appeal is against that finding and is with
leave of the court a quo.

[2] The background facts to the dispute are largely common cause. The
respondent issued summons as plaintiff against the appellants as defendants
in the trial court, claiming payment of arrear rental plus interest and costs,
based on a written lease agreement entered into between the parties. The
prayer sought in the particulars of claim was specifically couched in the
following terms:
'1. Payment of the sum of R353 126.40.
2. Interest on the abovementioned amount at the rate of prime plus 5% (five per
centum) calculated daily per annum a tempora morae to date of final payment.
. . .'

[3] After hearing argument, the trial court was satisfied that the respondent
had proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellants had breached the
terms of the lease agreement. It accordingly granted judgment in favour of the
respondent in accordance with the prayer sought in its particulars of claim.
The question whether the interest payable on the capital amount constituted
compound interest was neither raised nor argued. The learned magistrate
merely based her order on the provision in clause 21.4 of the lease
agreement which states that:
'21.4 The Lessee consents and agrees to pay interest charges on all outstanding
amounts due to the Lessor arising from any matter whatsoever, calculated on a daily
basis, at a rate of prime plus 5%.'

[4] Subsequently, the respondent launched application proceedings in the
court a quo. It sought a declarator that the trial court's order in relation to the
interest payable, meant interest calculated at 5 per cent above the prime rate

of interest charged by Nedbank Limited from time to time from 24 March 2006
and that such interest shall be calculated daily and compounded daily from
the 24th March 2006 to date of payment.1 As alluded to earlier, the court a quo
granted the order sought holding that the words 'calculated daily' in the trial
court's magistrate's order meant that interest was to be compounded daily.

[5] The parties' respective contentions can be summarised as follows. The
appellants submitted that the word 'calculated' in the order must be ascribed
its ordinary grammatical meaning namely, to determine the interest for a
particular period mathematically, which in this case, is on a daily basis.
Furthermore, as there was no averment or evidence of an agreement that
interest shall be compounded, the order must accordingly be interpreted to
provide for simple interest only. The respondent contended on the other hand,
that if the intention was to calculate interest on the arrear amount outstanding
on a daily basis, then there was no need to include the words 'calculated daily'
in the order and that their inclusion can only mean that interest was to be
compounded on a daily basis.

[6] It is trite law that the rules applicable to the interpretation of documents
are applicable to the interpretation of a judgment or order of court. The test in
this regard is well established. If there is no uncertainty in the meaning of the
words the court's intention must be established primarily from the language of
the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules
of interpretation of documents. If, however, uncertainty arises from the
judgment or order, regard may be had to extrinsic and the surrounding
circumstances relevant to the granting of such judgment or order such as the
evidence, both oral and documentary, that was adduced before the trial and
submissions made. Trollip JA described the test as follows in Firestone South
Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco A G:2
'First, some general observations about the relevant rules of interpreting a court's
judgment or order. The basic principles applicable to construing documents also

1 Prayer 1.4 of the Notice of Motion reads:
'1.4 Interest which accrues shall be interest at the rate referred to in 1.3 above calculated
daily and compounded daily from the 24th March 2006 to date of payment.'
2 Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gentiruco A G 1977 (4) SA 298 (A) at 304D-H.

apply to the construction of a court's judgment or order: the court's intention is to be
ascertained primarily from the language of the judgment or order as construed
according to the usual, well-known rules. See Garlick v Smartt and Another, 1928
A.D. 82 at p. 87; West Rand Estates Ltd. v New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd., 1926
A.D. 173 at p. 188. Thus, as in the case of a document, the judgment or order and
the court's reasons for giving it must be read as a whole in order to ascertain its
intention. If, on such a reading, the meaning of the judgment or order is clear and
unambiguous, no extrinsic fact or evidence is admissible to contradict, vary, qualify,
or supplement it. Indeed, it was common cause that in such a case not even the
court that gave the judgment or order can be asked to state what its subjective
intention was in giving it (cf. Postmasburg Motors (Edms.) Bpk. v Peens en Andere,
1970 (2) S.A. 35 (N.C.) at p. 39F-H). Of course, different considerations apply when,
not the construction, but the correction of a judgment or order is sought by way of an
appeal against it or otherwise – see infra. But if any uncertainty in meaning does
emerge, the extrinsic circumstances surrounding or leading up to the court's granting
the judgment or order may be investigated and regarded in order to clarify it; for
example, if the meaning of a judgment or order granted on an appeal is uncertain,
the judgment or order of the court a quo and its reasons therefor, can be used to
elucidate it. If, despite that, the uncertainty still persists, other relevant extrinsic facts
or evidence are admissible to resolve it. See Garlick's case, supra, 1928 A.D. at p.
87, read with Delmas Milling Co. Ltd. v Du Plessis, 1955 (3) S.A. 447 (A.D.) at pp.
454F-455A; Thomson v Belco (Pvt.) Ltd. and Another, 1960 (3) S.A. 809 (D).'3

[7] In my view and having regard to the above rule of interpretation, the
word 'calculated' in the trial court's order pertaining to interest, must be given
its grammatical and ordinary meaning, unless that would result in some
absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the order. To
'calculate' means to '[e]stimate or determine by arithmetical or mathematical
reckoning; estimate or determine by practical judgement or on the basis of
experience'.4

3 Van Rensburg & another NNO v Naidoo & others NNO; Naidoo & others NNO v Van
Rensburg NO & others 2011 (4) SA 149 (SCA) para 42.
4 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 6 ed vol 1 (2007).

[8] To 'capitalise' on the other hand means to 'convert into a capital sum'.5
Needless to say, the term capitalisation of interest is interchangeable with the
expression compounding of interest.6 Thus 'compound interest' is defined as
'reckoned on the principal together with the accumulated unpaid interest'.7
This must be contrasted with simple interest, which is reckoned or determined
on the principal or capital sum.

[9] As can clearly be seen, 'capitalised' and 'compound' on the one hand
bear a different meaning to the word 'calculated'. In terms of its definition,
capitalisation of interest, is no more than an accounting exercise which is
designed to simplify the calculation of compound interest, in respect of which
the interest's identity remains intact. In other words the concept is merely
concerned with what is to be done with the interest after it has been
calculated. Thus, it is quite possible that in certain circumstances
capitalisation might amount to a novation thereby converting the interest
element into capital.8 However 'calculated' only refers to the period or method
of calculating interest on the capital amount.9 The calculation will be in respect
of either simple or compound interest which may be done on an annual,
monthly or as in this case, on a daily basis. There is accordingly a clear
distinction between a method of calculation of interest on the one hand, and
the method of accounting for interest after its calculation on the other.

[10] Based on the aforegoing, it follows that the respondent's contention
that the words 'calculated daily' in the order envisaged that interest is to be
compounded daily, is legally untenable and cannot be sustained. In my view,
the fact that the respondent sought an order declaring that the interest must
be 'calculated daily and compounded daily' (emphasis added) is an implicit
concession on the respondent's part that these are two distinctly different
concepts which cannot have the same meaning.

5 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (supra).
6 Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe Ltd v M M Builders & Suppliers (Pvt) Ltd and three similar
cases 1997 (2) SA 285 (ZH) at 308C.
7 Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (supra).
8 Pfeiffer v First National Bank of SA Ltd 1998 (3) SA 1018 (SCA) at 1032B.
9 Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe (supra) at 308F-310B.

[11] The legal principles governing the applicability of compound interest
also militate against the interpretation which the respondent seeks to have
attached to the clause in question, especially when it is compared against
simple interest. As a starting point, it is accepted generally that where in a
written agreement, compound interest is not expressly provided for, only
simple interest was due. In Mayfair South Townships (Pty) Ltd v Jhina,10
clause 3 of the agreement read:
'The balance from time to time owing by the purchaser to the seller in respect of the
purchase price shall bear interest at the rate of 9.75 per cent per annum, provided
that the seller in its discretion may at any time increase such rate to a rate not
exceeding the maximum rate which from time to time is charged by any building
society in respect of a loan secured by a first mortgage bond over land. Such interest
shall be calculated monthly in advance and the payment of interest shall be included
in the aforesaid monthly payments, which payments shall in the first instance be
allocated to the payment of interest and thereafter in deduction of the purchase price'
In deciding whether or not compound interest was intended, Flemming J held
that the clause as phrased, could not have provided for anything more than
simple interest.

[12] It is also trite law that compound interest is claimable only in certain
defined circumstances, namely, where parties agree to pay compound
interest;11 if the obligation to pay interest is alleged,12 and if it is established by
evidence that a universal custom of lessors charging compound interest on
arrear rentals is uniformly and universally observed throughout leasing
practices in South Africa.13 The respondent has failed to establish any of
these grounds. Further, at the trial the respondent never attempted to raise or
argue any of these points. Significantly, the appellants' version in this respect
was not disputed in the respondent's replying affidavit.

10 Mayfair South Townships (Pty) Ltd v Jhina,1980 (1) SA 869 (T).
11 Davehill (Pty) Ltd v Community Development Board 1988 (1) SA 290 (A) at 298H-J where
Smalberger JA said: '[c]ompound interest (interest on interest) may be expressly stipulated for
by agreement, is commonplace today in commercial and financial dealings and has been
sanctioned by our courts for many years'.
12 L T C Harms, Amler's Precedents of Pleadings, 7 ed at 240.
13 Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) 1998
(1) SA 811 (SCA) at 829F.

[13] As stated earlier, the order of the trial court was granted in accordance
with the respondent's prayer as set out in the particulars of claim and also in
accordance with clause 2.14 of the lease agreement. The words 'compounded
daily' do not appear in this clause nor in the trial court's order. In light of the
aforegoing, the court a quo erred in finding that the words 'calculated daily'
intended that interest was to be compounded daily. The separate issue
pertaining to the applicability of the in duplum rule was conceded in the court
a quo and for that reason was not considered in this court.

[14] In the circumstances I make the following order:
1 The appeal is upheld with costs.
2 The order of the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, is set aside and
replaced by the following order:
'(a) Having regard to the judgment of the additional Magistrate E de Klerk
dated 19 February 2009 under case number 2795/2006 in the Germiston
Magistrate's Court, it is declared that:
(i) Interest which accrues on the capital amount of R353 126.40 may
accumulate for the period from 24 March 2006 to 1 June 2012 and that the in
duplum rule is suspended for such period;
(ii) The in duplum rule shall apply to interest which accrues on the capital of
R353 126.40 and accrued interest thereon from 2 June 2012 to date of
payment;
(b) the respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the application until
date of delivery of its answering affidavit, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved;
(c) the remainder of the application is dismissed;
(d) the applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the application incurred
after the delivery of its answering affidavit.'

_____________________
B H MBHA
JUDGE OF APPEAL

APPEARANCES:

For appellant:
H P van Nieuwenhuizen (1st & 2nd)

Instructed by:

David Kotzen Attorneys, Edenvale

Lovius-Block Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For respondent:
G Kairinos SC

Instructed by:

Marais Stephens Attorneys, Sandton

Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

19 March 2015

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Euro Blitz 21 (Pty) Ltd & another v Secena Aircraft Investments CC (102/14) [2015]
ZASCA 21 (19 March 2015)

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) upheld the appellants' appeal and set aside the order of
the South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg.

The issue for determination was whether the interest envisaged in the order of the trial court
constituted simple or compound interest.

The respondent issued summons against the appellants in the trial court, claiming payment of arrear
rental plus interest and costs, based on a written lease agreement entered into between the parties.
After hearing argument, the trial court was satisfied that the respondent had proved on a balance of
probabilities that the appellants had breached the terms of the lease agreement. It accordingly
granted judgment in favour of the respondent and the appellants were ordered inter alia, to pay the
respondent interest at prime plus 5 per cent calculated daily with effect from 24 March 2006 to date of
payment. Subsequently the respondent launched application proceedings in the South Gauteng High
Court, Johannesburg, seeking a declarator that the trial court’s order in relation to interest payable
meant interest calculated at 5 per cent above the prime rate of interest and that such interest was to
be calculated daily and compounded daily. The high court held that the words 'calculated daily' in the
order permitted no other interpretation than that interest was to be compounded daily.

The appellants submitted that the word 'calculated' in the order must be ascribed its ordinary
grammatical meaning. Furthermore, as there was no averment or evidence of an agreement that
interest shall be compounded, the order must accordingly be interpreted to provide for simple interest
only. The respondent contended on the other hand, that if the intention was to calculate interest on
the arrear amount outstanding on a daily basis, then there was no need to include the words
'calculated daily' in the order and that their inclusion could only mean that interest was to be
compounded on a daily basis.

The SCA held that it was trite law that the rules applicable to the interpretation of documents were
applicable to the interpretation of a judgment or order of court. It noted that if there was no uncertainty
in the meaning of the words, the court's intention must be established primarily from the language of
the judgment or order as construed according to the usual, well-known rules of interpretation of
documents.

The SCA held, in addition, that  having regard to the  rules of interpretation, the word 'calculated' in
the trial court's order pertaining to interest, must be given its grammatical and ordinary meaning,
unless that would result in some absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the order. It
therefore followed that the respondent's contention that the words 'calculated daily' in the order
envisaged that interest was to be compounded daily, was legally untenable and could not be
sustained.

The SCA noted further that it was also trite law that compound interest was claimable only in certain
defined circumstances, namely, where parties agreed to pay compound interest; if the obligation to
pay interest was alleged, and if it was established by evidence that a universal custom of lessors
charging compound interest on arrear rentals was uniformly and universally observed throughout
leasing practices in South Africa. In this regard, the court found that the respondent failed to establish
any of these grounds and at the trial the respondent never raised or argued any of these points.

--- ends ---