Sundry debtors register entries alone are insufficient to prove debt without proper account proof and corroborating evidence.

An account entry in a sundry debtors register, by itself, did not prove that the respondent owed the claimed debt. The entry only reflected an opening balance in the respondent's name and, without proof that the books were regularly maintained or supported by corroborating evidence, it was insufficient to establish liability. Purchase orders and payment details pointing to transactions with another concern further weakened the claim, and no witness was produced from among those who maintained or could prove the company's accounts. The claimed sum, interest, and notice charges were therefore not substantiated on the evidence produced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant proved that the respondent was liable to pay the claimed amount with interest and notice charges on the basis of the company records and other evidence produced.

Analysis: The claim rested mainly on an entry in the sundry debtors register. That entry by itself only showed an opening balance in the respondent's name and did not, without more, establish that the respondent was indebted to the company in liquidation. The respondent produced purchase orders and payment details showing transactions with another concern, and the applicant did not adduce evidence from anyone who maintained or could prove the accounts of the company. Mere production of an account entry, without proof of its regular maintenance and without corroborating material, was insufficient to establish the debt claimed.

Conclusion: The applicant failed to prove the respondent's liability for the claimed sum and interest.

---