Sanlam Life Insurance Limited v Africhick Trading (Pty) Ltd ta Africaz and Others (D946/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 12 (18 April 2024)

The case involves a dispute over unpaid rent for commercial property located in Chatsworth, Durban, South Africa. Sanlam Life Insurance Limited, the plaintiff, owns the Chatsworth Mall and leases business premises to tenants. They allege that the first defendant, Africchick Trading, has failed to pay the agreed-upon monthly rental and seek summary judgment against them and the second defendant, Yagambaram Naidu, who stood as surety for Africchick Trading's obligations. The total amount claimed is R227,947.21.

The application for summary judgment is supported by an affidavit from Annestia Steyn, who claims to be involved in the day-to-day management of the mall and has access to relevant records. However, there are inconsistencies in her affidavit regarding her employment and job responsibilities, casting doubt on her ability to swear positively to the facts of the case. The court finds that the application for summary judgment is defective due to these inconsistencies and grants the defendants leave to defend the action, with costs reserved for the trial court.

The core legal principle underlying the decision is the requirement for strict adherence to the Uniform Rule 32(2)(a) regarding summary judgment applications. The court emphasised that the plaintiff must provide an affidavit from an individual with direct knowledge of the facts who can swear positively to them. In this case, the affidavit presented by Ms. Annestia Steyn was deemed inadequate due to inconsistencies in her employment status and job responsibilities, creating uncertainty about her ability to swear positively to the facts. The court also highlighted the "drastic" nature of summary judgment, stressing that it should only be granted when there is strict compliance with the prerequisites of the rule and no uncertainty about the deponent’s position and knowledge.

Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd v Microzone Trading 88 CC and another [2010] ZAKZPHC 15; 2010 (5) SA 112 (KZP); [2011] 1 All SA 427 (KZP): This case affirmed that an affidavit in support of summary judgment must be made by someone with direct knowledge of the facts, not based on hearsay or solely on a review of documents. Wallis J stated that there must be no confusion about against whom judgment is sought and on what basis, and any defects in the application cannot be remedied by the respondent addressing the merits of the claim.

Barclays National Bank Limited v Love 1975 (2) SA 514 (D): This case acknowledged that information may be acquired indirectly through employment duties, such as a bank manager knowing a client's overdraft status without direct dealings.

Joob Joob Investments (Pty) Ltd v Stocks Mavundla Zek Joint Venture [2009] ZASCA 23; 2009 (5) SA 1 (SCA): Navsa JA clarified the purpose of summary judgment, stating that it was intended to prevent sham defences and delays, and it only holds "terrors" for a defendant who has no defence.

Maharaj v Barclay's Bank Ltd 1976 (1) SA 418 (A): Corbett JA underlined the importance of complying with the requirements of Rule 32 in summary judgment applications.

FirstRand Bank Limited v Beyer 2011 (1) SA 196 (GNP):
Ebersohn J analyzed Rule 32(2) and concluded that the court must be able to make factual findings that the deponent could swear positively to the facts, verify the cause of action and amount claimed, and form an opinion on the absence of a bona fide defence.