Cembrick Manufacturers CC v Dube (2030/2012) [2015] ZAFSHC 92 (21 May 2015)

Cembrick Manufacturers CC v Dube (2030/2012) [2015] ZAFSHC 92 (21 May 2015)

The court found, on the probabilities, that an account was opened for Creative Thinking and credit was granted to it. The defendant, as sole member of Creative Thinking, signed the necessary documents, including a deed of suretyship and cession of book debts, to facilitate the supply of bricks for his housing project. The evidence indicated that the defendant was aware that Creative Thinking was being debited for the bricks and that he benefited from the deliveries. The court rejected the defendant's version that the credit application was turned down and found that the defendant is liable as surety for the proven debts of Creative Thinking to the plaintiff. Regarding quantum, the court...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 92
Parties
Plaintiff: Cembrick Manufacturers CC; Defendant: SA Dube
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2015
Case Number
2030/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff, with quantum reduced by payments made by JAZ. Costs awarded as specified.
Judges
A Kruger
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Principal Debt, Credit Agreement, Cession of Book Debts, Quantum of Debt
Commercial and Corporate Suretyship Principal Debt Credit Agreement Cession of Book Debts Quantum of Debt

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cembrick Manufacturers CC

Plaintiff

SA Dube

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid principal debt existed between the plaintiff and Creative Thinking 534 t/a TK Developers.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable as surety and co-principal debtor for the debts of Creative Thinking to the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of the plaintiff's claim was properly proved and whether payments made by JAZ should reduce the claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on the probabilities, that an account was opened for Creative Thinking and credit was granted to it. The defendant, as sole member of Creative Thinking, signed the necessary documents, including a deed of suretyship and cession of book debts, to facilitate the supply of bricks for his housing project. The evidence indicated that the defendant was aware that Creative Thinking was being debited for the bricks and that he benefited from the deliveries. The court rejected the defendant's version that the credit application was turned down and found that the defendant is liable as surety for the proven debts of Creative Thinking to the plaintiff. Regarding quantum, the court...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff, with quantum reduced by payments made by JAZ. Costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay plaintiff R156,459.10 plus interest at 1.5% per month from 1 July 2009 to date of payment.
  • Plaintiff is ordered to pay the wasted costs of the hearing on 29 October 2013.