Case name (full citation)/Legislation:
Motor Finance Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Prinsloo (1830/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 51 (22 September 2011)

Area of law:
Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment

Brief facts/summary:
 
The defendant had defaulted on his monthly instalments in respect of a vehicle which he purchased from a dealer. The plaintiff was the financier and the owner of the vehicle. In the defendant’s plea he alleged that the vehicle was not in good working order, contrary to the representations which were made to him by the sales person.

The plaintiff applied for summary judgment in an attempt to confirm the cancellation of the written agreement between the parties and to have an order authorising the sheriff to take possession and deliver the vehicle to the plaintiff.

In his opposing affidavit, the defendant alleged that the vehicle had suffered major mechanical problems and there were implied terms in the agreement which included that the vehicle was:

1.  of good quality;
2.  in working order;
3.  free from latent defects; and
4.  usable and durable and would continue to be, for a reasonable period of time.

As a result, the defendant claimed that the defects existed at the time of the purchase which had not been disclosed to him.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had failed to set out sufficient facts to support the contention that the alleged defects were present at the time of the purchase. In addition, the plaintiff stated that in terms of the agreement the defendant had undertaken to inspect the vehicle for defects before the delivery and therefore he would be excluded on relying on the defence which he submitted.

The court held that a defendant wishing to resist summary judgment has to only set out the facts which he believes will constitute a valid defence, these material facts must be fully disclosed so that the court can decide whether they accept the defence as bona fide.

Further the court held that at this stage the enquiry will be limited to whether the defence will constitute a valid defence and will not constitute an analysis into the merits of the defence.

Therefore, in the present case, the court found that the defence put forward by the defendant constituted a valid and comprehensive defence and as a result summary judgment was refused.

Importance/value:
The purpose of a summary judgment application is not deprive someone who has a bona fide defence to pursue that defence but rather aimed at someone who is trying to intentionally delay the proceedings on a “bogus” defence with the sole aim of frustrating the plaintiff’s claim.

WEBSITE DISCLAIMER: Save for the contents of this disclaimer, the content of this website is provided for general information purposes only and should not be construed as, and does not constitute, legal or other professional advice. To the extent that you wish to place reliance upon any information contained on this website, you do so totally at your own risk and we accept no responsibility for any loss or damage whatsoever, howsoever arising. In addition, the hyperlinks provided on this website are provided for convenience only. We make no representations or warranties whatsoever in respect of the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, opinions, data and/or content provided on such linked website, nor do we endorse or take any responsibility for the content of any such linked website.