Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited; Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited (1000/18; 999/18) [2019] ZASCA 110 (13 September 2019)

Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited; Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd v Bidvest Bank Limited (1000/18; 999/18) [2019] ZASCA 110 (13 September 2019)

Clause 3.2 of the Customer Agreement creates an independent, irrevocable, unconditional, legal, valid, transferable, and binding payment obligation in favour of the respondent upon the posting of a payment assurance by the appellant. The obligation is not contingent on the drawing of bills of exchange or the enforceability of the account receivable owed to Tradeflow. The appellant's affidavit resisting summary judgment failed to disclose any bona fide defence worthy of consideration by a trial court. The court below correctly exercised its discretion in granting summary judgment, as the respondent's claim was incontestable under the terms of the Customer Agreement.

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 110
Parties
Appellant: Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Bidvest Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2019
Case Number
1000/18; 999/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Granted by the Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division High Court, Durban
Outcome
Both appeals are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Saldulker, Van der Merwe, Tsoka
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Contractual Interpretation, Payment Obligation, Affidavit Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Summary Judgment Contractual Interpretation Payment Obligation Affidavit Bona Fide Defence

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connecto Fasteners (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Jacobs Capital (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Bidvest Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Granted by the Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division High Court, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment was correctly granted against the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' affidavit disclosed a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim.
  3. 3 How clause 3.2 of the Customer Agreement should be interpreted regarding the payment obligation.

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 3.2 of the Customer Agreement creates an independent, irrevocable, unconditional, legal, valid, transferable, and binding payment obligation in favour of the respondent upon the posting of a payment assurance by the appellant. The obligation is not contingent on the drawing of bills of exchange or the enforceability of the account receivable owed to Tradeflow. The appellant's affidavit resisting summary judgment failed to disclose any bona fide defence worthy of consideration by a trial court. The court below correctly exercised its discretion in granting summary judgment, as the respondent's claim was incontestable under the terms of the Customer Agreement.

Court Disposition

Both appeals are dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Both appeals are dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel.