Daniel v Boland Bank Ltd. (137/1992) [1993] ZASCA 135 (27 September 1993)

Daniel v Boland Bank Ltd. (137/1992) [1993] ZASCA 135 (27 September 1993)

The appellant's grounds for denying liability under the deed of suretyship were found to be implausible and unsupported by sufficient detail or evidence. The notion that the bank agreed to provide unlimited facilities to Dandev was rejected as highly improbable. The appellant failed to specify the terms, conditions, or particulars of the alleged breaches and did not establish that any bank official had authority to conclude such an agreement. Consequently, there was no merit in the appellant's defence, and the court a quo was justified in refusing the application for oral evidence and confirming the rule nisi. The applications for condonation of late filing were refused as there were no...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 135
Parties
Appellant: Frank Werner Daniel; Respondent: Boland Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 1993
Case Number
137/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Sequestration Order; Applications for Condonation of Late Filing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; applications for condonation refused; costs awarded against appellant.
Judges
Van Heerden, Vivier, Eksteen, Nicholas, Howie
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Suretyship, Condonation of Late Filing, Breach of Contract, Oral Evidence Referral
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Sequestration Suretyship Condonation of Late Filing Breach of Contract Oral Evidence Referral

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Werner Daniel

Appellant

Boland Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Sequestration Order; Applications for Condonation of Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was discharged from liability under the deed of suretyship due to alleged breaches of contract by the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the court a quo erred in refusing to refer material disputes for oral evidence.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of appeal documents should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's grounds for denying liability under the deed of suretyship were found to be implausible and unsupported by sufficient detail or evidence. The notion that the bank agreed to provide unlimited facilities to Dandev was rejected as highly improbable. The appellant failed to specify the terms, conditions, or particulars of the alleged breaches and did not establish that any bank official had authority to conclude such an agreement. Consequently, there was no merit in the appellant's defence, and the court a quo was justified in refusing the application for oral evidence and confirming the rule nisi. The applications for condonation of late filing were refused as there were no...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; applications for condonation refused; costs awarded against appellant.

Orders

  • The applications for condonation of the late filing of the notice of appeal, the record, the power of attorney and the provision of security for the respondent's costs of appeal are refused.
  • The appellant is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by those applications as well as the costs of the appeal.