UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
TLI4801: Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Portfolio Examination — Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
TLI4801
Module Code:
Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Module Name:
Portfolio Examination May/June 2026
Assessment:
265699
Unique Number:
26 May 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Criminal and Procedural Law
Department:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for TLI4801 — UNISA 2026
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Question 1: Civil Practice
1.1 The Maneq (Pty) Ltd v Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd Dispute
The facts of this matter involve a purchase and sale agreement concluded on 1 August 2025,
in terms of which Maneq (Pty) Ltd supplied two heavy-duty plastic bottle manufacturing ma-
chines to Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd at a total cash price of R10 000 000. The price was payable
in six equal monthly instalments. The machines were delivered and put into use. Despite ver-
bal assurances by Zema Plastics’ director, Mr Zee Man, to Maneq’s CEO, Mr Drew Case, the
final instalment of approximately R1 666 667 remains outstanding.
Question 1.1(a): Advising on the Use of a Demand Letter
(i) Effectiveness of a Demand Letter (3 marks)
A written demand letter is generally the first formal step taken before instituting court pro-
ceedings in a commercial debt matter. Its value lies in putting the debtor on terms, confirm-
ing the outstanding amount in writing, and creating a documented paper trail that confirms
the creditor’s attempts to resolve the dispute amicably.1
In this specific situation, the letter does carry potential. The facts show that Zema Plas-
tics has not disputed the debt itself but has simply failed to pay, citing cash flow difficulties.
Where there is no genuine dispute about liability, a well-drafted demand letter sometimes
prompts immediate settlement, especially where the debtor wants to preserve a business re-
lationship.2 That said, the verbal assurances already given by Mr Zee Man have produced
no result. The client must therefore understand that a letter alone carries no legal force; if
ignored, it will need to be followed up with formal court proceedings. The letter does, how-
ever, serve as a necessary precursor to litigation and may also trigger the running of interest
in some contractual arrangements.3
On balance, a demand letter is a worthwhile first step, but the client should be advised that
it is not a guarantee of payment. Should Zema Plastics fail to respond positively within a
reasonable time, usually 10 to 14 days, formal legal proceedings must follow without further
delay.
1
CG Marnewick, Litigation Skills for South African Lawyers (5th edn, LexisNexis 2024) 45–47.
2
Ibid 48.
3
Prescribed Minimum Business Practices, National Credit Act 34 of 2005, s 129 read with s 130 (applicable
by analogy to commercial collections).
Page 2 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
(ii) The Demand Letter
LETTER OF DEMAND
[Letterhead of Attorney]
Firm Name and Address
Reference: MvZ/2025/001
Date: 21 May 2026
The Director
Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd
Registered Address
Pretoria North
Attention: Mr Zee Man
RE: OUTSTANDING DEBT OF R1 666 667 – URGENT DEMAND FOR PAY-
MENT
Dear Mr Zee Man
We act on behalf of Maneq (Pty) Ltd (“our client”), and we write to you in that capacity.
Our client advises us of the following: On or about 1 August 2025, your company, Zema Plas-
tics (Pty) Ltd (“the debtor”), entered into a written purchase and sale agreement with our
client for the supply and delivery of two heavy-duty plastic bottle manufacturing machines at
a total consideration of R10 000 000, payable in six equal monthly instalments of R1 666 667
each.
Our client confirms that the machines were duly delivered to your premises and have been in
use since delivery. We are instructed that all prior instalments have been settled; however, the
final instalment of R1 666 667 fell due and remains unpaid to date, notwithstanding several
verbal undertakings made by yourself to our client’s CEO.
You are accordingly placed on demand to settle the full outstanding amount of R1 666 667
(One Million Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Seven
Rand) within seven (7) calendar days from the date of this letter, failing which our client
Page 3 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
will be constrained, without further notice, to institute legal proceedings against your com-
pany for:
• payment of the outstanding capital sum of R1 666 667;
• mora interest at the prescribed rate from the date of default to date of final payment;
• costs of suit on the attorney-and-client scale; and
• further and/or alternative relief.
The outcome of such proceedings, including an adverse costs order, will be at your company’s
expense. We trust you will give this matter your urgent attention.
Yours faithfully
[Attorney Name]
Attorney for Maneq (Pty) Ltd
Page 4 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Question 1.1(b): Type of Court Proceedings (4 marks)
Where a demand letter produces no positive response, Maneq (Pty) Ltd must institute formal
court proceedings to recover the outstanding amount. The appropriate form of proceedings
in this instance is a combined summons in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Di-
vision, Pretoria, given that the amount in dispute exceeds the magistrates’ court monetary
jurisdiction of R400 000.4
A combined summons combines the summons itself (which initiates proceedings) with a partic-
ulars of claim setting out the material facts relied upon.5 It is the most appropriate procedure
here because:
• the claim is a liquidated amount arising from a written agreement, making the quantum
straightforward to determine;
• the cause of action is clearly based on breach of contract, specifically failure to pay an
instalment due;
• the combined summons enables the plaintiff to proceed to summary judgment swiftly if
the defendant enters an intention to defend without a bona fide defence.6
Regarding jurisdiction, the agreement was concluded and the machines were delivered in Pre-
toria North, and Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd has its business address there. The High Court,
Gauteng Division, Pretoria, therefore has jurisdiction on the basis of both the place of con-
tracting and the domicilium of the defendant.7
Maneq (Pty) Ltd, as a private company with separate legal personality, has full locus standi
to litigate in its own name.8
Question 1.1(c): Summary Judgment Against Zema Plastics (4 marks)
Where a defendant enters an intention to defend, the plaintiff may, within the time periods
prescribed by the Rules, bring an application for summary judgment under Rule 32 of the
Uniform Rules of Court.9 The purpose of the remedy is to prevent a defendant from using the
mere filing of a notice of intention to defend as a dilatory tactic where the defendant has no
4
Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944, s 29(1)(a) as amended; see also the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
5
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 17; Marnewick (n 1) 115–120.
6
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32.
7
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, s 21(1).
8
Companies Act 71 of 2008, s 19(1)(b).
9
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(1).
Page 5 of 31
, UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
bona fide defence.10
For summary judgment to be available, the claim must arise from one of the following:
1. a liquid document;
2. a liquidated amount of money;
3. delivery of specified movable property; or
4. ejectment.11
In the Maneq matter, the claim is for a liquidated amount arising from a written purchase and
sale agreement. This falls squarely within the Rule 32 jurisdiction. The supporting affidavit
filed by Maneq (Pty) Ltd must verify the cause of action and the amount claimed, and must
state that the deponent believes the defendant has no bona fide defence.12
Should Zema Plastics oppose the application, it must file an opposing affidavit setting out the
facts of its defence and disclosing fully the nature and grounds thereof.13 If the court finds
that the defendant has disclosed a bona fide defence that is neither vague nor speculative, it
will grant leave to defend and the matter will proceed to trial. Otherwise, summary judgment
will be granted.
Critical Consideration
Key Threshold: Mere allegations of cash flow difficulty are unlikely to constitute a
bona fide defence to a liquidated claim arising from a written contract. The defendant
must show a triable issue, such as a dispute about the quality of the machines delivered
or an alleged variation of the payment terms.
Question 1.1(d): Pleading in Response to the Intention to Defend (4 marks)
Where no summary judgment application is brought, or where leave to defend has been granted,
the rules require the plaintiff to file a declaration.14 This is the pleading referred to in the
question. Although a declaration and particulars of claim serve a similar purpose, in High
Court proceedings a declaration must be filed when a simple summons (rather than a com-
bined summons) was used. Where a combined summons is used, the particulars of claim are
already attached; a separate declaration is only required when a simple summons was used or
10
Marnewick (n 1) 138.
11
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(1)(a)–(d).
12
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(2); Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T).
13
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(3)(b).
14
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 19(1).
Page 6 of 31
College of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
TLI4801: Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Portfolio Examination — Semester 1, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
TLI4801
Module Code:
Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Module Name:
Portfolio Examination May/June 2026
Assessment:
265699
Unique Number:
26 May 2026
Due Date:
100
Total Marks:
Criminal and Procedural Law
Department:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for TLI4801 — UNISA 2026
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Question 1: Civil Practice
1.1 The Maneq (Pty) Ltd v Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd Dispute
The facts of this matter involve a purchase and sale agreement concluded on 1 August 2025,
in terms of which Maneq (Pty) Ltd supplied two heavy-duty plastic bottle manufacturing ma-
chines to Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd at a total cash price of R10 000 000. The price was payable
in six equal monthly instalments. The machines were delivered and put into use. Despite ver-
bal assurances by Zema Plastics’ director, Mr Zee Man, to Maneq’s CEO, Mr Drew Case, the
final instalment of approximately R1 666 667 remains outstanding.
Question 1.1(a): Advising on the Use of a Demand Letter
(i) Effectiveness of a Demand Letter (3 marks)
A written demand letter is generally the first formal step taken before instituting court pro-
ceedings in a commercial debt matter. Its value lies in putting the debtor on terms, confirm-
ing the outstanding amount in writing, and creating a documented paper trail that confirms
the creditor’s attempts to resolve the dispute amicably.1
In this specific situation, the letter does carry potential. The facts show that Zema Plas-
tics has not disputed the debt itself but has simply failed to pay, citing cash flow difficulties.
Where there is no genuine dispute about liability, a well-drafted demand letter sometimes
prompts immediate settlement, especially where the debtor wants to preserve a business re-
lationship.2 That said, the verbal assurances already given by Mr Zee Man have produced
no result. The client must therefore understand that a letter alone carries no legal force; if
ignored, it will need to be followed up with formal court proceedings. The letter does, how-
ever, serve as a necessary precursor to litigation and may also trigger the running of interest
in some contractual arrangements.3
On balance, a demand letter is a worthwhile first step, but the client should be advised that
it is not a guarantee of payment. Should Zema Plastics fail to respond positively within a
reasonable time, usually 10 to 14 days, formal legal proceedings must follow without further
delay.
1
CG Marnewick, Litigation Skills for South African Lawyers (5th edn, LexisNexis 2024) 45–47.
2
Ibid 48.
3
Prescribed Minimum Business Practices, National Credit Act 34 of 2005, s 129 read with s 130 (applicable
by analogy to commercial collections).
Page 2 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
(ii) The Demand Letter
LETTER OF DEMAND
[Letterhead of Attorney]
Firm Name and Address
Reference: MvZ/2025/001
Date: 21 May 2026
The Director
Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd
Registered Address
Pretoria North
Attention: Mr Zee Man
RE: OUTSTANDING DEBT OF R1 666 667 – URGENT DEMAND FOR PAY-
MENT
Dear Mr Zee Man
We act on behalf of Maneq (Pty) Ltd (“our client”), and we write to you in that capacity.
Our client advises us of the following: On or about 1 August 2025, your company, Zema Plas-
tics (Pty) Ltd (“the debtor”), entered into a written purchase and sale agreement with our
client for the supply and delivery of two heavy-duty plastic bottle manufacturing machines at
a total consideration of R10 000 000, payable in six equal monthly instalments of R1 666 667
each.
Our client confirms that the machines were duly delivered to your premises and have been in
use since delivery. We are instructed that all prior instalments have been settled; however, the
final instalment of R1 666 667 fell due and remains unpaid to date, notwithstanding several
verbal undertakings made by yourself to our client’s CEO.
You are accordingly placed on demand to settle the full outstanding amount of R1 666 667
(One Million Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty-Seven
Rand) within seven (7) calendar days from the date of this letter, failing which our client
Page 3 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
will be constrained, without further notice, to institute legal proceedings against your com-
pany for:
• payment of the outstanding capital sum of R1 666 667;
• mora interest at the prescribed rate from the date of default to date of final payment;
• costs of suit on the attorney-and-client scale; and
• further and/or alternative relief.
The outcome of such proceedings, including an adverse costs order, will be at your company’s
expense. We trust you will give this matter your urgent attention.
Yours faithfully
[Attorney Name]
Attorney for Maneq (Pty) Ltd
Page 4 of 31
,UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
Question 1.1(b): Type of Court Proceedings (4 marks)
Where a demand letter produces no positive response, Maneq (Pty) Ltd must institute formal
court proceedings to recover the outstanding amount. The appropriate form of proceedings
in this instance is a combined summons in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Di-
vision, Pretoria, given that the amount in dispute exceeds the magistrates’ court monetary
jurisdiction of R400 000.4
A combined summons combines the summons itself (which initiates proceedings) with a partic-
ulars of claim setting out the material facts relied upon.5 It is the most appropriate procedure
here because:
• the claim is a liquidated amount arising from a written agreement, making the quantum
straightforward to determine;
• the cause of action is clearly based on breach of contract, specifically failure to pay an
instalment due;
• the combined summons enables the plaintiff to proceed to summary judgment swiftly if
the defendant enters an intention to defend without a bona fide defence.6
Regarding jurisdiction, the agreement was concluded and the machines were delivered in Pre-
toria North, and Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd has its business address there. The High Court,
Gauteng Division, Pretoria, therefore has jurisdiction on the basis of both the place of con-
tracting and the domicilium of the defendant.7
Maneq (Pty) Ltd, as a private company with separate legal personality, has full locus standi
to litigate in its own name.8
Question 1.1(c): Summary Judgment Against Zema Plastics (4 marks)
Where a defendant enters an intention to defend, the plaintiff may, within the time periods
prescribed by the Rules, bring an application for summary judgment under Rule 32 of the
Uniform Rules of Court.9 The purpose of the remedy is to prevent a defendant from using the
mere filing of a notice of intention to defend as a dilatory tactic where the defendant has no
4
Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944, s 29(1)(a) as amended; see also the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
5
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 17; Marnewick (n 1) 115–120.
6
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32.
7
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, s 21(1).
8
Companies Act 71 of 2008, s 19(1)(b).
9
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(1).
Page 5 of 31
, UNISA | TLI4801 Techniques in Trial and Litigation
bona fide defence.10
For summary judgment to be available, the claim must arise from one of the following:
1. a liquid document;
2. a liquidated amount of money;
3. delivery of specified movable property; or
4. ejectment.11
In the Maneq matter, the claim is for a liquidated amount arising from a written purchase and
sale agreement. This falls squarely within the Rule 32 jurisdiction. The supporting affidavit
filed by Maneq (Pty) Ltd must verify the cause of action and the amount claimed, and must
state that the deponent believes the defendant has no bona fide defence.12
Should Zema Plastics oppose the application, it must file an opposing affidavit setting out the
facts of its defence and disclosing fully the nature and grounds thereof.13 If the court finds
that the defendant has disclosed a bona fide defence that is neither vague nor speculative, it
will grant leave to defend and the matter will proceed to trial. Otherwise, summary judgment
will be granted.
Critical Consideration
Key Threshold: Mere allegations of cash flow difficulty are unlikely to constitute a
bona fide defence to a liquidated claim arising from a written contract. The defendant
must show a triable issue, such as a dispute about the quality of the machines delivered
or an alleged variation of the payment terms.
Question 1.1(d): Pleading in Response to the Intention to Defend (4 marks)
Where no summary judgment application is brought, or where leave to defend has been granted,
the rules require the plaintiff to file a declaration.14 This is the pleading referred to in the
question. Although a declaration and particulars of claim serve a similar purpose, in High
Court proceedings a declaration must be filed when a simple summons (rather than a com-
bined summons) was used. Where a combined summons is used, the particulars of claim are
already attached; a separate declaration is only required when a simple summons was used or
10
Marnewick (n 1) 138.
11
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(1)(a)–(d).
12
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(2); Breitenbach v Fiat SA (Edms) Bpk 1976 (2) SA 226 (T).
13
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(3)(b).
14
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 19(1).
Page 6 of 31
