Dolbey v Nedbank Limited (AR148/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 150 (24 November 2023)

Dolbey v Nedbank Limited (AR148/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 150 (24 November 2023)

The court held that the trial judge correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant's denial of her signature was inconsistent and not raised clearly in her plea, but only during trial. The trial court was entitled to accept the respondent's version that the appellant signed the suretyship agreement, especially given the objective evidence that the property used as security was registered in her name and worth more than R2 million. The appellant's conduct after being informed of her surety status was improbable, as she did not take any steps to dispute the signature until the summons was issued. The appellate court found no basis to...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 150
Parties
Appellant: Louise Helen Dolbey; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Case Number
AR148/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court, Durban
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Poyo Dlwati, Henriques, Z P Nkosi
Legal Topics
Suretyship Agreement, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses, General Law Amendment Act, Signature Dispute
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Suretyship Agreement Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses General Law Amendment Act Signature Dispute

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Helen Dolbey

Appellant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant attended the respondent's premises on 30 July 2014 and signed a suretyship agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent discharged the onus of proving execution and authenticity of the suretyship agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the trial judge correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant's denial of her signature was inconsistent and not raised clearly in her plea, but only during trial. The trial court was entitled to accept the respondent's version that the appellant signed the suretyship agreement, especially given the objective evidence that the property used as security was registered in her name and worth more than R2 million. The appellant's conduct after being informed of her surety status was improbable, as she did not take any steps to dispute the signature until the summons was issued. The appellate court found no basis to...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.