AR Laser Scanning Services (Pty) Ltd v Reyamisa Industrial Psychologist Service

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: HF Brauckmann AJ
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2021
• Hearing Date: 09 February 2021
• Docket Number: 72/2020

Brauckmann AJ:

[1]

This is an application for the provisional winding-up of the Respondent based on partly oral, party written agreement ("the agreement"), entered into between the parties.

[2]

The basis for the application is borne from the Respondent's alleged inability to pay its debts owed to the Applicant for services rendered in terms of the agreement.

[3]

It is alleged by the Applicant that in terms of the agreement certain laser scanning services would be rendered by the Applicant to the Respondent.

[4]

Various quotations are annexed to the Founding Affidavit, which quotations were accepted by the Respondent.

[5]

The total due to the Applicant for services rendered amounts to R 391 145.00.

[6]

Only an amount of R35 000.00 was paid by the Respondent to the Applicant during May 2019.

2021 JDR 0260 p3

Brauckmann AJ

[7]

Despite various letters of demand sent to the Respondent for payment, no payment was made by the Respondent, excluding the amount of R35 000.00 referred to earlier.

[8]

During or about 7 November 2019 a Notice in terms of Section 345(1) (a) of the Companies Act was served on the Respondent. Despite service of the said notice, no payment were made by the Respondent, nor was any correspondence exchanged with the Applicant's attorneys or the applicant by the respondent.

[9]

The Respondent's defence is a simple one. It states that the agreement contained a specific term that it would only pay the Applicant for the services once it was paid by its client. The withholding of certain scans and drawings by the Applicant allegedly caused the Respondent's client not to pay it, which in turn prevented it from paying the Applicant.

[10]

The Applicant denies the existence of the alleged payment term. The Applicant states that the defence raised by the Respondent is nonsensical and completely baseless. It states that had the parties reached such an agreement, be it orally or in writing, the Applicant would most definitely have delivered the scans and drawings to the Respondent. Failure to deliver these scans and drawings to the Respondent would have had the effect that the Applicant would have

2021 JDR 0260 p4

Brauckmann AJ

been responsible non-payment of the fees for services rendered to itself. Applicant would then have made performance by the Respondent impossible and would have unsuited itself. That would definitely have prejudiced the Applicant.

[11]

The Applicant further states that the two letters annexed to the Respondent's Opposing Affidavit, upon which the Respondent relies to disclose its defence, being Annexures "JJN2" and "JJN3", the Respondent opportunistically misconstrues the content of the emails.

[12]

In neither Annexures "JJN2" nor "JJN3", letters in which the Applicant seeks payment, does the Respondent raise the defence it now raises...