JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:

and

JUDGMENT

In its papers applicant alleges that respondent is indebted to it in an amount of at least R584 581,58, which amount is due and payable. This indebtedness is said to arise from an agreement in terms of which respondent chartered a helicopter from applicant. In its opposing papers, respondent admits receipt of invoices from applicant relating to charges levied by applicant, totalling R1 098 080,44. It is common cause that respondent only made payment of a total amount of R361 860,44 to applicant.

However, respondent claims that it rendered services to applicant in respect of which amounts became due and payable by applicant to respondent. In this regard respondent alleges that the parties maintained a running account which reflected the amounts respectively due by the parties to each other. This account was updated from time to time in terms of which debits and credits between the parties were set off against each other. In terms of this account, respondent contends that the amount of all its claims against applicant exceeds the amount of applicant's claim against respondent.

As Mr Spamer for applicant submitted, the scale is evenly balanced and oral evidence is required to tip it one way or the other. From this it follows, in my view, that respondent has succeeded in showing that the grounds advanced by it in disputing its alleged indebtedness to applicant, are not unreasonable. I am in any event satisfied that on the papers before me, respondent has alleged sufficient facts which, if proved at trial, would constitute a good defence of set off to applicant's claim. I do not consider it necessary to traverse all the evidence in this regard, but it will suffice to refer to the following.

It is not disputed by applicant that there was a business relationship between the parties, in terms of which they would render services and hire equipment to and from each other. It is common cause that a running account was maintained between the parties during the course of their relationship. It would, therefore, not be strange, as alleged by respondent, that such account would be updated from time to time by the setting off of debits and credits between the parties. The services allegedly rendered by respondent to applicant cover a wide range of activities and as submitted by Mr Kantor for respondent, the overwhelming probability appears to be that same would not have been rendered free of charge to applicant.

In its reply, applicant has disputed the veracity of the statement of account annexed to respondent's papers, stating that it is a fabrication including fictitious amounts. However when applicant, in its replying affidavit, challenged the respondent to furnish supporting documentation for certain claims, respondent did respond by filing additional documentation as part of a supplementary set of affidavits.

FOURIE, J