Payment of the sum of US$58 335,00 as per the acknowledgment of debt; Interest thereon at the rate of 1,5% per month calculated from the date of the acknowledgment of debt, being 17 April, 2012, to date of payment in full; of suit. The appellant entered appearance to defend and what it termed a special plea averring: defendant specially pleads that the same matter between substantially the same “The parties is still pending in this court under case number HC 3595/12 which matter the plaintiff purportedly withdrew from this court on 26 January 2013 but which withdrawal is null and void. Wherefore defendant prays for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with costs on the attorney client scale.” – Thereafter the respondent made an application for summary judgment premised upon the acknowledgment of debt alluded to The appellant opposed the application by supra. raising a number of preliminary issues which were essentially not germane to the resolution of the real issue between the parties. The court properly was not detained by those issues. a quo On the merits the appellant claimed that it had a defence set out in paragraph 4.1 of the bona fide opposing affidavit which reads: Whilst I admit having signed, on behalf of respondent, the document annexed to “4.1 applicant’s papers as Annexure that document makes it clear that payment of “B” the amount due was conditional upon my receiving a loan from a financial institution. In other words a condition precedent to the payment of the amount outstanding has not been met.”
Payment of the sum of US$58 335,00 as per the acknowledgment of debt; Interest thereon at the rate of 1,5% per month calculated from the date of the acknowledgment of debt, being 17 April, 2012, to date of payment in full; of suit. The appellant entered appearance to defend and what it termed a special plea averring: “The defendant specially pleads that the same matter between substantially the same parties is still pending in this court under case number HC 3595/12 which matter the plaintiff purportedly withdrew from this court on 26 January 2013 but which withdrawal is null and void. Wherefore defendant prays for the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims with costs on the attorney – client scale.” Thereafter the respondent made an application for summary judgment premised upon the acknowledgment of debt alluded to supra. The appellant opposed the application by raising a number of preliminary issues which were essentially not germane to the resolution of the real issue between the parties. The court a quo properly was not detained by those issues. On the merits the appellant claimed that it had a bona fide defence set out in paragraph 4.1 of the opposing affidavit which reads: “4.1 Whilst I admit having signed, on behalf of respondent, the document annexed to applicant’s papers as Annexure “B” that document makes it clear that payment of the amount due was conditional upon my receiving a loan from a financial institution. In other words a condition precedent to the payment of the amount outstanding has not been met.”
SC%2013-15%20-%20DOWOOD%20SERVICES%20%28PVT%29%20LIMITED%20ta%20BRADFIELD%20MOTORS%20v%20RAILINGS%20ENTERPRISES%20%28PVT%29%20LIMITED%20ta%20PAROAN%20TRUCKING.docx