,QUESTION 1: CIVIL PRACTICE
1.1
(a) Advice on a letter of demand and drafting of the letter
(i) Effectiveness of a letter of demand (3 marks)
A letter of demand is not merely a formality but serves several critical functions. First, it may
prompt the debtor (Zema Plastics) to settle the outstanding debt without litigation, saving time and
costs.¹ Second, it provides a final opportunity for payment before legal proceedings commence.
Third, it is a substantive requirement for certain proceedings (e.g., summary judgment) because it
demonstrates that the debtor was placed in mora and given an opportunity to pay.² However,
given that Zema Plastics has already defaulted on the last instalment and verbal assurances by Mr
Zee Man proved fruitless, a letter alone is unlikely to be effective unless accompanied by a credible
threat of legal action. The client’s view that the matter is “straightforward” is accurate in terms of
liability (written agreement, delivery, partial payment), but without a response to the letter,
litigation will be necessary. Thus, a letter is necessary but not sufficient; it is an effective precursor
to litigation but unlikely to resolve the matter independently given past broken assurances.
(ii) Letter of demand (3 marks)
The following letter should be prepared on Maneq (Pty) Ltd’s letterhead and sent by registered
post/courier and email to Zema Plastics’ registered address (Pretoria North) and to Mr Zee Man
personally (though he is not a party to the agreement).
[MANEQ (PTY) LTD LETTERHEAD]
Date: [Insert date, e.g., 1 September 2025]
To: The Director
Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd
[Insert full registered address, Pretoria North]
Per email: [insert email address]
For urgent attention: Mr Zee Man (Sole Director)
RE: FINAL LETTER OF DEMAND – OUTSTANDING INSTALMENT IN TERMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT DATED 1 AUGUST 2025 (MACHINES: 2 HEAVY DUTY UNITS)
We act on behalf of Maneq (Pty) Ltd (“our client”).
On 1 August 2025, our client and your company concluded a written purchase and sale agreement
for the supply and delivery of two heavy duty plastic bottle manufacturing machines at a total cash
price of R10 000 000,00, payable in six equal monthly instalments of R1 666 666,67 each. The
machines were duly delivered to your premises and have been used by your company.
Footnotes:
¹ Erasmus, Superior Court Practice (Juta) B1-20; Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
² Bredenkamp v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) para 12.
, Your company paid the first five instalments but failed to pay the sixth and final instalment of R1
666 666,67 due on [insert due date, e.g., 1 February 2026]. Despite verbal assurances by you, Mr
Zee Man, to our client’s CEO, Mr Drew Case, the amount remains outstanding.
By this letter, you are hereby DEMANDED to pay the full outstanding amount of R1 666 666,67
together with interest at the prescribed rate of 11.75% per annum a tempore morae from the due
date until final payment, within 10 (ten) business days of receipt of this letter.
Should you fail to do so, our client will institute legal proceedings against your company for the full
outstanding amount, plus interest, costs on the attorney-and-client scale, and any further relief,
without further notice to you.
This letter serves as formal compliance with the requirement of a notice of default in terms of the
agreement and the common law, and will be used to support an application for summary judgment
should you enter an intention to defend.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name/firm]
Attorneys for Maneq (Pty) Ltd
(b) Type of court proceedings to claim payment (4 marks)
Maneq (Pty) Ltd will institute action proceedings (as opposed to application proceedings) because
there is a genuine dispute of fact foreseeable – Zema Plastics may raise a defence (e.g., alleged
defects in machines, although not pleaded here).³ Action proceedings are the appropriate vehicle
where a party seeks a monetary judgment based on a contract and where oral evidence may be
required.⁴
More specifically, the claim is for a debt or liquidated demand (a fixed sum of money: the last
instalment of R1 666 666,67). Therefore, Maneq can issue a combined summons (High Court) or a
liquid document summons (if the agreement qualifies as a liquid document – a written
acknowledgement of debt or unconditional undertaking to pay a fixed sum).⁵ Given that the
amount exceeds R600 000, the matter falls within the High Court’s jurisdiction (Gauteng Division,
Pretoria) because the defendant’s registered address is Pretoria North and the cause of action
arose there.⁶
Thus, proceedings: Action by way of combined summons in the High Court (or potentially the
Magistrates’ Court if the amount were under R600 000, but here it exceeds that threshold).⁷
Footnotes:
³ Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).
⁴ Herbstein & Van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa (2015) at 9-12.
⁵ Uniform Rule 17(2)(b); Lobo Properties (Pty) Ltd v Express Lift Co (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1961 (3) SA 704 (W).
⁶ Section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
⁷ Section 29(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 (jurisdictional limit now R600 000 as of 2025 – assume no increase beyond).
1.1
(a) Advice on a letter of demand and drafting of the letter
(i) Effectiveness of a letter of demand (3 marks)
A letter of demand is not merely a formality but serves several critical functions. First, it may
prompt the debtor (Zema Plastics) to settle the outstanding debt without litigation, saving time and
costs.¹ Second, it provides a final opportunity for payment before legal proceedings commence.
Third, it is a substantive requirement for certain proceedings (e.g., summary judgment) because it
demonstrates that the debtor was placed in mora and given an opportunity to pay.² However,
given that Zema Plastics has already defaulted on the last instalment and verbal assurances by Mr
Zee Man proved fruitless, a letter alone is unlikely to be effective unless accompanied by a credible
threat of legal action. The client’s view that the matter is “straightforward” is accurate in terms of
liability (written agreement, delivery, partial payment), but without a response to the letter,
litigation will be necessary. Thus, a letter is necessary but not sufficient; it is an effective precursor
to litigation but unlikely to resolve the matter independently given past broken assurances.
(ii) Letter of demand (3 marks)
The following letter should be prepared on Maneq (Pty) Ltd’s letterhead and sent by registered
post/courier and email to Zema Plastics’ registered address (Pretoria North) and to Mr Zee Man
personally (though he is not a party to the agreement).
[MANEQ (PTY) LTD LETTERHEAD]
Date: [Insert date, e.g., 1 September 2025]
To: The Director
Zema Plastics (Pty) Ltd
[Insert full registered address, Pretoria North]
Per email: [insert email address]
For urgent attention: Mr Zee Man (Sole Director)
RE: FINAL LETTER OF DEMAND – OUTSTANDING INSTALMENT IN TERMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE
AGREEMENT DATED 1 AUGUST 2025 (MACHINES: 2 HEAVY DUTY UNITS)
We act on behalf of Maneq (Pty) Ltd (“our client”).
On 1 August 2025, our client and your company concluded a written purchase and sale agreement
for the supply and delivery of two heavy duty plastic bottle manufacturing machines at a total cash
price of R10 000 000,00, payable in six equal monthly instalments of R1 666 666,67 each. The
machines were duly delivered to your premises and have been used by your company.
Footnotes:
¹ Erasmus, Superior Court Practice (Juta) B1-20; Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
² Bredenkamp v Standard Bank of SA Ltd 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) para 12.
, Your company paid the first five instalments but failed to pay the sixth and final instalment of R1
666 666,67 due on [insert due date, e.g., 1 February 2026]. Despite verbal assurances by you, Mr
Zee Man, to our client’s CEO, Mr Drew Case, the amount remains outstanding.
By this letter, you are hereby DEMANDED to pay the full outstanding amount of R1 666 666,67
together with interest at the prescribed rate of 11.75% per annum a tempore morae from the due
date until final payment, within 10 (ten) business days of receipt of this letter.
Should you fail to do so, our client will institute legal proceedings against your company for the full
outstanding amount, plus interest, costs on the attorney-and-client scale, and any further relief,
without further notice to you.
This letter serves as formal compliance with the requirement of a notice of default in terms of the
agreement and the common law, and will be used to support an application for summary judgment
should you enter an intention to defend.
Yours faithfully,
[Your name/firm]
Attorneys for Maneq (Pty) Ltd
(b) Type of court proceedings to claim payment (4 marks)
Maneq (Pty) Ltd will institute action proceedings (as opposed to application proceedings) because
there is a genuine dispute of fact foreseeable – Zema Plastics may raise a defence (e.g., alleged
defects in machines, although not pleaded here).³ Action proceedings are the appropriate vehicle
where a party seeks a monetary judgment based on a contract and where oral evidence may be
required.⁴
More specifically, the claim is for a debt or liquidated demand (a fixed sum of money: the last
instalment of R1 666 666,67). Therefore, Maneq can issue a combined summons (High Court) or a
liquid document summons (if the agreement qualifies as a liquid document – a written
acknowledgement of debt or unconditional undertaking to pay a fixed sum).⁵ Given that the
amount exceeds R600 000, the matter falls within the High Court’s jurisdiction (Gauteng Division,
Pretoria) because the defendant’s registered address is Pretoria North and the cause of action
arose there.⁶
Thus, proceedings: Action by way of combined summons in the High Court (or potentially the
Magistrates’ Court if the amount were under R600 000, but here it exceeds that threshold).⁷
Footnotes:
³ Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).
⁴ Herbstein & Van Winsen, The Civil Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa (2015) at 9-12.
⁵ Uniform Rule 17(2)(b); Lobo Properties (Pty) Ltd v Express Lift Co (SA) (Pty) Ltd 1961 (3) SA 704 (W).
⁶ Section 21(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
⁷ Section 29(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 (jurisdictional limit now R600 000 as of 2025 – assume no increase beyond).
