Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]     This is a claim for payment of monies that are alleged to be due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The claim  emanates  from  contrats entered into by individual  plaintiffs  for the delivery of  water during the period of drought in Steynsrus town and the surrounding areas.

           It is common cause that the plaintiffs did deliver water during February to May 2016. The plaintiffs allege that they were each  approached by the first defendant who offered them contracts to assist him to deliver water from their respective farms to Steynsrus town and the township while the  defendants  deny that the first defendant entered into any contract with the plaintiffs. The defendats’   version is that the contracts were entered into with the fourth defendant represented by the  3rd defendant.

[2]     The parties agreed that the issues be narrowed down to determine who the contracting parties were. This leads to one question alive for the court’s determination, namely, whether the first defendant or the fourth defendant represented by the third defendant was the contracting party with  plaintiffs  in this matter.