GHPM Boerdery 100 Bk v Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika Bpk (13166/08) [2009] ZAGPHC 28 (12 February 2009)

GHPM Boerdery 100 Bk v Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika Bpk (13166/08) [2009] ZAGPHC 28 (12 February 2009)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any misrepresentation by the defendant's representative regarding the limitation of the suretyship. The evidence did not support the claim that the defendant represented the suretyship as limited to R500,000.00. The plaintiff's representative signed an unlimited suretyship agreement, and the court accepted the defendant's version that the nature and extent of the suretyship were explained. The plaintiff did not discharge its onus to prove lack of consensus or justus error. As rectification was abandoned and the pleaded cause of action was not established, absolution from the instance was granted with costs.

Citation
[2009] ZAGPHC 28
Parties
Plaintiff: GHPM Boerdery 100 BK; Defendant: Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika BPK
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Case Number
13166/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Instance
Outcome
Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendant.
Judges
Van der Merwe R
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Misrepresentation, Consensus, Rectification, Onus of Proof
Commercial and Corporate Suretyship Misrepresentation Consensus Rectification Onus of Proof

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

Parties

GHPM Boerdery 100 BK

Plaintiff

Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika BPK

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suretyship agreement signed by the plaintiff was limited to R500,000.00 or unlimited.
  2. 2 Whether misrepresentation by the defendant's representative occurred regarding the scope of the suretyship.
  3. 3 Whether there was consensus between the parties at the time of signing the suretyship agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove any misrepresentation by the defendant's representative regarding the limitation of the suretyship. The evidence did not support the claim that the defendant represented the suretyship as limited to R500,000.00. The plaintiff's representative signed an unlimited suretyship agreement, and the court accepted the defendant's version that the nature and extent of the suretyship were explained. The plaintiff did not discharge its onus to prove lack of consensus or justus error. As rectification was abandoned and the pleaded cause of action was not established, absolution from the instance was granted with costs.

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance with costs granted in favour of the defendant.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the action.