What is the approach to be adopted to resolve disputes of fact in motion proceedings?
_____________________________________
The test formulated in Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A), and so applied in Thebe Ya Bophelo Healthcare Administrators v National Bargaining Council for the Road Freight Industry 2009 (3) SA 187 (W) amounts to the following:
- the facts stated by the respondent, together with the admitted or undisputed facts in the applicant’s affidavit, provide the factual basis for a finding
- the above position is applicable unless the court is justified in rejecting the respondent’s version on any one or more of the following grounds:
- the dispute is not real or genuine (on the basis of a bare denial) or
- the denials in the respondent’s version of bald and uncreditworthy (Wightman t/a JA Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA)) or
- the respondent’s version raises obvious fictitious disputes of fact or
- the respondent’s version is palpably implausible or farfetched or so clearly untenable that the court is justified in rejecting that version
See, further, National Scrap Metal (Cape Town) v Murray & Roberts 2012 (5) SA 300 (SCA)
