Avrum Finance (Pty) Ltd v Saaiman and Others (15035/2019) [2021] ZAWCHC 219 (29 October 2021)
The court found that the respondents were liable under the suretyship for the sum of R402,180.33, which was loaned and advanced by the applicant to the principal debtor. The reference to the 'Seasonal Advance Loan Agreement' instead of the 'Production Loan Agreement' did not render the suretyship unenforceable, as it was common cause that only one loan agreement existed and the respondents were aware of the principal obligation. The certificate of balance provided prima facie proof of the amount owed, but the court was not satisfied that the higher amount of R570,373.76 was due, as the evidence did not support this claim. Rectification of the suretyship document was deemed unnecessary....
- Citation
- [2021] ZAWCHC 219
- Parties
- Applicant: Avrum Finance (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: André Daniël Saaiman; Respondent: Corné Adriaan Saaiman; Respondent: André Daniël Saaiman N.O.; Respondent: Corné Adriaan Saaiman N.O.; Respondent: Frederik Thomas Saaiman N.O.; Respondent: Bespoke Fiduciary Service (Pty) Ltd N.O.
- Court
- Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 October 2021
- Case Number
- 15035/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Money Judgment Based on Suretyship
- Outcome
- Application partially granted; respondents ordered to pay R402,180.33 plus interest and costs on party and party scale.
- Judges
- E D Wille
- Legal Topics
- Suretyship Liability, Rectification of Contract, Certificate of Balance, Business Rescue, Mora Interest
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Avrum Finance (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
André Daniël Saaiman
Respondent
Corné Adriaan Saaiman
Respondent
André Daniël Saaiman N.O.
Respondent
Corné Adriaan Saaiman N.O.
Respondent
Frederik Thomas Saaiman N.O.
Respondent
Bespoke Fiduciary Service (Pty) Ltd N.O.
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion for Money Judgment Based on Suretyship
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are liable under the suretyship for the amount claimed by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the reference to the 'Seasonal Advance Loan Agreement' instead of the 'Production Loan Agreement' renders the suretyship unenforceable.
- 3 Whether the certificate of balance provides prima facie proof of the amount owed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents were liable under the suretyship for the sum of R402,180.33, which was loaned and advanced by the applicant to the principal debtor. The reference to the 'Seasonal Advance Loan Agreement' instead of the 'Production Loan Agreement' did not render the suretyship unenforceable, as it was common cause that only one loan agreement existed and the respondents were aware of the principal obligation. The certificate of balance provided prima facie proof of the amount owed, but the court was not satisfied that the higher amount of R570,373.76 was due, as the evidence did not support this claim. Rectification of the suretyship document was deemed unnecessary....
Court Disposition
Application partially granted; respondents ordered to pay R402,180.33 plus interest and costs on party and party scale.
Orders
- The first and second respondents, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the applicant the sum of R402,180.33 within ten days of the order.
- The first and second respondents, jointly and severally, shall be liable for mora interest at the legal rate on the sum of R402,180.33.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment