Callcom CC v Bergh
| Judge | Raath, AJ |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2004 |
| Citation | 2004 JDR 0455 (T) |
| Docket Number | 15100/2003 |
| Hearing Date | 01 July 2004 |
| Court | Transvaal Provincial Division |
Raath AJ:
This judgment concerns the extended return date of a provisional sequestration order issued on 11 November 2003.
It is convenient to start with a brief summary of the history of the matter which preceded the commencement of the application for respondent's sequestration.
The respondent divorced from his wife on 18 January 1991. The relevant terms of the usual deed of settlement incorporated in the divorce order may be summarized as follows:
The respondent was to grant his wife who, to judge from his affidavits filed of record, is still known under her married name and to whom I shall
2004 JDR 0455 p2
Raath AJ
accordingly refer below as Mrs Bergh, a right to occupation of a property in Rooihuiskraal, Pretoria ["the property"]. Respondent would be responsible for the payment of the bond installments and would pay a contribution of R300 per month towards the maintenance of the property. Respondent would not be entitled to sell the property, but should Mrs Bergh desire to discontinue occupation, respondent would have to sell the property in which event respondent
" ... will receive one third of the nett purchase price, the plaintiff receiving the rest of the purchase price to do as she thinks fit" [the plaintiff having been Mrs Bergh].
Respondent was prohibited from mortgaging the property any further. Furthermore, and should Mrs Bergh die before a period of ten years, and her mother still be alive, then Mrs Bergh's mother would be allowed to remain in the house until her death.
Clause 6 reads:
"Plaintiff will be entitled to half of defendant's pension at the SA Development Trust, Skinner Street, Pretoria as at date of divorce and he undertakes to furnish a printout or certificate showing the figure as at date of divorce to plaintiff's attorney (HJ Smal)."
Mrs Bergh for her part abandoned her claim to a certain life policy.
During or about June 2001 respondent gave at least one blank cheque (he says there was a second) to one Anene Mienie for the amount of R430 264,80. His explanation for doing that will appear below. On 4 September 2001 applicant issued summons against the respondent claiming to be the holder of the cheque,
2004 JDR 0455 p3
Raath AJ
dated 5 June 2001. The cheque as claimed upon was made out to "Callcom or bearer". It was dishonoured.
On 17 August 20011 that is before summons was issued, respondent gave a handwritten statement to applicant's attorneys. The contents of that statement is dealt with below. The significance of the fact that this statement was made before summons was issued lies in the fact that during September 2001 (the exact date being unknown, but counsel for both parties were agreed that it must have been during that month) the respondent received payment of his pension. He says that it was utilised by him to "assist" his children, and not for the payment to Mrs Bergh of her share. No meaningful exposition of the extent, nature, purpose or timing of the assistance allegedly given to his children is offered by respondent. The date of his handwritten statement shows that by the time he received the pension money, he must have realised that applicant's claim was on its way.
On 30 October 2001 respondent attested to an answering affidavit in response to an application for summary judgment. Appended to that affidavit was his handwritten statement of 17 August 2001. It reads:
"Hiermee verklaar ek Johannes Ludolf Bergh dat ene Anene Mienie ... my deur my seun Riaan Bergh ...genader het om 'n tjek ten bedrae van R516 000 (ACQ Promotions) in my bankrekening te betaal en dan twee tjeks, een van ± R430 000 en een van R80 000 uit te skryf en aan haar te gee. Ek kan net noem dat ek Anene Mienie en haar familie, uitgesluit haar eggenote, al ongeveer 15 jaar ken.
Die volgende gebeure het plaasgevind
2004 JDR 0455 p4
Raath AJ
Tjek ten bedrae van R516 000 word in my rekening betaal (3/6/2001).
'n Paar dae later gee ek aan Anene Mienie twee tjeks (R430 000 en R80 000).
Standard Bank kontak my op 8 Junie en deel my mee dat die tjek R516 000 nie betaal is nie.
Ek probeer om tjeks R430 000 en R80 000 te stop maar was te laat.
Anene Mienie betaal 'n tjek van R511 000 in my rekening, maar stop die tjek weer.
Standard Bank laat weet my dat tjek van R430 000 nie betaal is nie.
Ek verklaar dat ek geen kennis het van of geen besigheid met Anene Mienie gedoen het nie, dit geld ook vir ene Richard Wamersley."
The latter should be a reference to Womersley, being the deponent to the applicant's founding affidavit.
In his answering affidavit, and having referred to the handwritten statement, respondent continued as follows:
Die spesifieke ooreenkoms tussen my en Anene Mienie was dat hierdie tjeks by 'n latere geleentheid deur haar aangewend sou word.
In hierdie omstandighede het ek twee getekende tjeks aan haar oorhandig.
Dit was verder spesifiek met Mienie ooreengekom dat die tjek wat sy aan my oorhandig het eers gehonoreer moet word alvorens daar gelde tot haar beskikking sou wees.
Dit het egter later tot my kennis gekom dat sy voortgegaan het en 'n tjek ten bedrae van R430 264,80 ten gunste van Callcom
2004 JDR 0455 p5
Raath AJ
uitgeskryf het.
Ek kan wel vermeld dat Mienie aan my vermeld het dat die bedrae van die tjeks ongeveer R430 000 en R80 000 sou beloop, alhoewel ek nie spesifieke besonderhede verder van kennis gedra het nie.
Ek het op geen stadium enige besigheid met applikant/eiser gedoen, en as te ware weet nie (sic) watse besigheid die applikant/eiser doen nie.
Ek was nie voornemens om enige gelde aan die applikant/eiser te betaal nie.
Daar is ook geen ander basis waarop ek die applikant/eiser enige geld skuld nie.
Uit hoofde van die versekering gegee deur Anene Mienie dat die gelde inderdaad beskikbaar sou wees, het ek die tjeks aan haar oorhandig.
Dit is alleenlik gedoen omdat ek Anene Mienie en haar familie, uitgesluit haar nuwe eggenote, vir 'n tydperk van ongeveer 15 jaar reeds ken, uit hoofde daarvan dat gemelde Mienie saam met ons kinders skool toe gegaan het.
Ek is later in kennis gestel dat die tjek van ACQ Promotions nie gehonoreer is nie, en dat die rekening gesluit is, met die veronderstelling dat die gelde deur Mienie eers aangewend sou word wanneer die gelde beskikbaar is, was ek nie regtig bekommerd nie. Ek het Mienie net hiervan in kennis gestel.
Hierop het Mienie onderneem om 'n vervangende tjek in die rekening in te betaal en dit is inderdaad ook die tjek ten bedrae van R511 000 wat Mienie self in my rekening betaal het.
Dit het ook eers later tot my kennis gekom dat betaling van hierdie tjek gestaak is, en het dit eers tot my kennis gekom nadat die onbetaalde tjek aan my versend is, welke drie weke na die inbetaling daarvan was."
2004 JDR 0455 p6
Raath AJ
In paragraph 6 of the affidavit it is repeated that he had no intention to pay the applicant, and he added:
" ...en was dit alleenlik, soos reeds hier verduidelik, uit hoofde van die gelde wat Mienie aan my oorhandig het as teenprestasie daarvoor."
In paragraph 7 he mentioned that the two cheques given to Mienie were in fact not completed, and continued:
"Daar was nooit enige bedoeling dat hierdie tjek inderdaad aan die applikant/eiser oorhandig sou word nie, en het ek ook nie die moontlikheid voorsien dat dit inderdaad aan die applikant/eiser oorhandig sou word nie.
Ek het wel voorsien dat Mienie die tjeks later sou aanwend, maar eers op die stadium wanneer die gelde beskikbaar sou wees."
Respondent's plea was delivered on 21 December 2001. In response to the allegation in the particulars of claim that plaintiff is the holder of the cheque, he pleaded:
"Die inhoud van die paragraaf word erken, behalwe
vir die feit dat die verweerder ontken dat eiser die houer, alternatiewelik die regmatige houer, van die gemelde tjek is, soos beweer en plaas eiser tot bewys daarvan; en
meer spesifiek pleit verweerder dat hy nie die tjek ten gunste van eiser getrek het nie, maar dat dit 'n onvoltooide tjek was wat verweerder aan ene Anene Mienie gegee het met die bedoeling dat die tjek wat gemelde Anene Mienie aan verweerder gegee het eers gehonoreer moes word, alvorens sy die tjek van verweerder kon verhandel."
2004 JDR 0455 p7
Raath AJ
I may mention that the pleadings in the action were incorporated in the papers of this application by reference. Both counsel were agreed that it does form part of the record in the application.
On 12 March 2002 the applicant applied for a trial date.
On 26 April 2002 Mrs Bergh issued a notice of motion in case number 11384/2002 in this Court citing the respondent herein as respondent in that application. It states that absent opposition, application would be made on 28 May 2002 for an order amending the initial deed of settlement referred to above by substituting the applicable provisions in regard to the property the following:
"That the plaintiff will receive the property known as (particulars) as her exclusive property."
I will refer to this application below as "the amendment application".
On 29 April 2002 the registrar gave the usual notice to the attorneys of record that the trial date would be 29 November 2002.
On 28 May 2002 this Court issued an order as prayed for in the amendment application. There was no opposition. I will refer to it as the "amendment order".
On 16 October 2002 transfer is effected of respondent's registered share in the property to Mrs Bergh.
Scarcely a month after such transfer, and less than two weeks before the trial
2004 JDR 0455 p8
Raath AJ
date namely on 15 November 2002, respondent withdrew his opposition to the action, thereby allowing applicant to obtain default judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial