ABSA Bank Limited v Objective Photo (Pty) Ltd and Another (035251/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 32 (24 January 2024)

ABSA Bank Limited v Objective Photo (Pty) Ltd and Another (035251/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 32 (24 January 2024)

The plaintiff failed to attach a signed and complete loan agreement to its particulars of claim, rendering the claim unenforceable. The absence of the plaintiff's signature on the loan agreement and the lack of connection between the suretyship agreement and the loan agreement meant that the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, and the attachments did not support the averments. Consequently, the plaintiff did not make out a proper case for default judgment against either defendant.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 32
Parties
Plaintiff: ABSA Bank Limited; Defendant: Objective Photo (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Jacobus Daniel Wiedemen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 January 2024
Case Number
035251/2022
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment
Outcome
Application struck off; no order as to costs.
Judges
Malatsi-Teffo
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Loan Agreement, Suretyship, Pleading Requirements, Contract Enforceability
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Default Judgment Loan Agreement Suretyship Pleading Requirements Contract Enforceability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABSA Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Objective Photo (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Jacobus Daniel Wiedemen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has made out a proper case for default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether an enforceable contract exists between the parties.
  3. 3 Whether judgment can be granted against both defendants or only the first defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to attach a signed and complete loan agreement to its particulars of claim, rendering the claim unenforceable. The absence of the plaintiff's signature on the loan agreement and the lack of connection between the suretyship agreement and the loan agreement meant that the plaintiff did not comply with the requirements of Rule 18(6) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The particulars of claim were vague and embarrassing, and the attachments did not support the averments. Consequently, the plaintiff did not make out a proper case for default judgment against either defendant.

Court Disposition

Application struck off; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off.
  • No order as to costs.