A Gauteng public school has won the right to defend a R275,351 claim over an equipment-leasing agreement after raising questions about whether its former school governing body had the authority to sign the deal and whether the required procurement procedures were followed.
The Johannesburg High Court dismissed an application for summary judgment against Altmont Technical High School, finding that the school had raised genuine legal issues that required a trial.
The ruling, delivered on 21 October 2026, means the dispute will proceed rather than allowing the claimant to obtain judgment without a full trial.
South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Limited sought payment of R275,351.40, interest at six percentage points above the prime lending rate from 31 May 2024, and legal costs on the attorney-and-own-client scale.
The claim arose from a master rental agreement purportedly concluded between the school’s former governing body and Corporate Rental Solutions in March 2023 for the leasing of equipment and associated services.
The claim had subsequently passed through a series of financial agreements and transfers before reaching the securitisation company pursuing the school for payment.
But the school challenged the enforceability of the agreement, arguing that the required formalities had not been met and that there was no valid agreement on a material term.
It also raised questions about whether the former governing body had followed a competitive bidding process before committing the school to the contract.
Section 217 of the Constitution requires public procurement to be conducted in accordance with a system that is fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost-effective.
The school argued that no tender process had been followed and that there was no evidence of circumstances that would have justified a lawful departure from competitive bidding requirements.
It also questioned whether the former governing body had the authority to enter into the agreement when its term of office had ended.
The school told the court that there was no resolution or record showing that its governing body had been authorised to conclude the contract. It also pointed to the absence of minutes from governing-body meetings or meetings of parents approving the transaction.
The court noted that these issues could affect the validity of the agreement and were not matters that could simply be dismissed at the summary-judgment stage.
The school further disputed whether it had received all the goods and services covered by the agreement.
According to the judgment, the school had raised concerns that some of the items listed in the contract had not been delivered.
It also said that after it sent a cancellation notice, it was told an investigation would be conducted and that technicians would be sent to assess the situation. The school alleged that the promised assessment did not take place.
These allegations formed part of the school’s defence and have not yet been finally determined at trial.
The Court emphasised that summary judgment should not be granted where a defendant has raised a genuine defence that deserves to be heard.
The procedure is intended to prevent defendants from delaying judgment where they have no sustainable defence, but it should not shut out a party with a genuine dispute that requires a trial.
The court found that the school had raised triable issues about the validity of the agreement, procurement requirements and the alleged non-delivery of goods and services.
“Given that these are summary judgment proceedings, any doubt with regard to the issues raised must be to the benefit of the defendant and I cannot grant summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant,” the court said.
The court dismissed the application and granted the school leave to defend the claim. Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause, meaning they will be dealt with as part of the ongoing proceedings.
The ruling does not establish that the agreement was unlawful or that the school is not liable for the amount claimed. Those questions remain to be determined through the litigation.
