IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 

CASE NO: 4069/2011
In the matter between: 

versus

JUDGMENT   : 13 APRIL 2011

[1] In this matter I propose to give short reasons for judgment in view of the fact that the matter was opposed and I heard argument from both parties.

[4] That burden is not shifted by reason of the defendants admission of their signature and the onus remains on the plaintiff to satisfy the court that it will succeed in the principal case as above stated.

[6] This is a case where liability depends upon plaintiff giving the defendant 180 days written notice demanding payment. See Clause 2.1 at p8 of the record

[12]   Defendants fourth defence is that the service of the section 129 Notice in terms of the NCA was not properly effected. This notice (a copy which is annexed to the papers) was sent by registered post and clearly complies with the section 129
[13]   In the result I find that the defendants have not established any of the defences raised and that on a balance of -probabilities the plaintiff will succeed in the principal case. In the result I direct that 
a)     Provisional sentence is granted against the defendants jointly
and severally the one paying the others to be absolved for payment of

iii)	Costs of suit taxed on the attorney and client scale including collection commission.

L. WEINKOVE, AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT