F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk. (266/97) [1998] ZASCA 65; 1999 (1) SA 515 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 480 (A) (10 September 1998)

F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk. (266/97) [1998] ZASCA 65; 1999 (1) SA 515 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 480 (A) (10 September 1998)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal to allow amendment of the plea to raise the in duplum rule was correct and final. The appellants had sufficient opportunity to raise the issue earlier, especially given the course of the trial and the settlement agreement on quantum. The burden to plead and prove the in duplum rule lies with the defendant unless the violation is apparent from the plaintiff's case. In this matter, the facts necessary to establish a breach of the rule were not before the court, and the evidence did not justify a finding that the rule was violated. The court is not obliged to investigate possible breaches of the in duplum rule on its own initiative unless the...

Citation
[1998] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk; Appellant: Johannes Frederick Wessels; Respondent: Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Beperk
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 1998
Case Number
266/97
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, Harms, Plewman, Farlam
Legal Topics
In Duplum Rule, Pleading Requirements, Burden of Proof, Compound Interest, Settlement Agreements
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure In Duplum Rule Pleading Requirements Burden of Proof Compound Interest Settlement Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk

Appellant

Johannes Frederick Wessels

Appellant

Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Beperk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the in duplum rule must be pleaded by a defendant or considered mero motu by the court.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff must prove that the interest component of a claim does not exceed the capital amount.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to amend the plea to raise the in duplum rule was correct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the refusal to allow amendment of the plea to raise the in duplum rule was correct and final. The appellants had sufficient opportunity to raise the issue earlier, especially given the course of the trial and the settlement agreement on quantum. The burden to plead and prove the in duplum rule lies with the defendant unless the violation is apparent from the plaintiff's case. In this matter, the facts necessary to establish a breach of the rule were not before the court, and the evidence did not justify a finding that the rule was violated. The court is not obliged to investigate possible breaches of the in duplum rule on its own initiative unless the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.