Cash-strapped textile manufacturer Waltex has been ordered by the Western Cape High Court to settle its excess of R1.6 million debt owed to distribution company Laser Logistics after it defaulted on payments dating back to 2017. 

Acting Judge Ajay Bhoopchand ordered that Waltex pay back R1,651,207.03, including the interest thereon at the prescribed rate of interest per annum.

During court proceedings, the textile company admitted that it fell into arrears with its payments, but denied that the balances calculated at the various stages of their engagement since first falling into arrears in January 2017 were correct. According to their arguments, the logistics company “rendered incorrect invoices and had overcharged it”. 

The company had gone into arrears a year after it signed a credit agreement embodied in a credit application in February 2016. 

According to the agreement, Laser Logistics would issue monthly invoices payable within 30 days of presentation for the services it rendered to Waltex. 

By June 2024, the arrears amounted to more than R2.1m, and to recover and make arrangements to pay back the debt, the parties concluded an agreement in which weekly payments of R35,000 would be made each Friday.

This agreement was also defaulted on for two payments during October last year. Waltex was then informed, by an attorney, that it had to pay the full outstanding balance immediately, but as it could not honour the agreement, the company asked for an indulgence as it had “cash flow problems”.

The indulgence was then granted to them, but after that, it still defaulted on an arranged payment date in October. 

Court papers read: “(Laser) stated that it would cease providing services to (Waltex) unless payment in full of R177,222.85 had been made by 1 November 2024. If Waltex made this payment, Laser would be prepared to resume the services.”

The latter was subject to the parties concluding an acceptable acknowledgement of debt agreement. 

Despite Waltex making a payment of R177,222.85 in December to narrow down its debt, Laser declined further trading with it, forcing Waltex to use other logistics suppliers. 

Waltex then argued that because the parties entered into a payment agreement, Laser’s decision to refuse to perform and unilaterally amend the agreement — demanding an acknowledgement of debt and seeking additional payments — “was deceitful and contrary to public policy”.

Acting Judge Bhoopchand, in his judgment, said that Waltex — who, in a final attempt to stave off payment, disputed the computation of the debt — failed to satisfy the evidentiary burden to show that the amount claimed is not owing. 

“A debtor’s refusal to pay, without lawful justification, undermines the legal system’s credibility and the economy’s stability. Courts and legislatures generally reject excuses that amount to strategic avoidance. This includes tactics like delaying payment and disputing clear obligations.”

 chevon.booysen@inl.co.za

Source link