[6] The defendants filed an opposing affidavit, deposed to by Mr. Fanuel Alexander, setting out the basis of their defence as follows (I quote verbatim from the opposing affidavit): From the outset it is important to note that the Respondents’ notice of intention to defend in ‘8. the main action was not filed merely for the purpose of delay. 9. The Respondents in effect have a bona fide defence in respect of the Applicants Particulars of Claim as shall be illustrated herewith. 10. Firstly, the Respondents intent to raise an exception on the basis that the Applicant’s Particulars of Claim do not disclose a cause of action in that the Applicant basis its claims on a written agreement, attached to the Particulars of Claim as Annexure A, which was never signed and thus never came into force. 11. Secondly, the Applicant is claiming for an amount in respect of rental and charges in respect of cylinders in the amount of N$ 102,547.87 (one hundred and two thousand dive hundred and forty seven Namibian dollars and eighty seven cents). 12. was however no agreement that the Respondents were renting the cylinders from the Applicant, instead the Respondents purchased the gas in the cylinders and after using the gas and emptying the cylinders the Respondents returned the cylinders to the Applicant. 13. Therefore the Applicant is not entitled to the rental and charges amount of any cylinders but rather the value of any missing cylinders or damage thereto if such can be proven by the Applicant, which they failed to do in their Particulars of Claim. C.1 CLAIM AGAINST THE SECOND RESPONDENT 14. The Applicant claims that I signed a suretyship agreement binding myself, in my personal capacity, to any debts that the First Respondent may incur as a result of the alleged agreement. 15. I never signed the alleged agreement as can be seen on Annexure D of the Applicants Particulars of Claim, which is the deed of suretyship that the Applicant relies on.
[6] The defendants filed an opposing affidavit, deposed to by Mr. Fanuel Alexander, setting out the basis of their defence as follows (I quote verbatim from the opposing affidavit): ‘8. From the outset it is important to note that the Respondents’ notice of intention to defend in the main action was not filed merely for the purpose of delay. 9. The Respondents in effect have a bona fide defence in respect of the Applicants Particulars of Claim as shall be illustrated herewith. 10. Firstly, the Respondents intent to raise an exception on the basis that the Applicant’s Particulars of Claim do not disclose a cause of action in that the Applicant basis its claims on a written agreement, attached to the Particulars of Claim as Annexure A, which was never signed and thus never came into force. 11. Secondly, the Applicant is claiming for an amount in respect of rental and charges in respect of cylinders in the amount of N$ 102,547.87 (one hundred and two thousand dive hundred and forty seven Namibian dollars and eighty seven cents). 12. was however no agreement that the Respondents were renting the cylinders from the Applicant, instead the Respondents purchased the gas in the cylinders and after using the gas and emptying the cylinders the Respondents returned the cylinders to the Applicant. 13. Therefore the Applicant is not entitled to the rental and charges amount of any cylinders but rather the value of any missing cylinders or damage thereto if such can be proven by the Applicant, which they failed to do in their Particulars of Claim. C.1 CLAIM AGAINST THE SECOND RESPONDENT 14. The Applicant claims that I signed a suretyship agreement binding myself, in my personal capacity, to any debts that the First Respondent may incur as a result of the alleged agreement. 15. I never signed the alleged agreement as can be seen on Annexure D of the Applicants Particulars of Claim, which is the deed of suretyship that the Applicant relies on.
Air%20Liquide%20Namibia%20v%20Afrinam%20Investments%20(HC-MD-CIV-ACT-CON-2017-03356)%20[2018]%20NAHCMD%20123%20(11%20May%202018).docx