Jurgens and Others v Volkskas Bank Ltd. (404/91) [1992] ZASCA 152; 1993 (1) SA 214 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 199 (A) (17 September 1992)

Jurgens and Others v Volkskas Bank Ltd. (404/91) [1992] ZASCA 152; 1993 (1) SA 214 (AD); [1993] 1 All SA 199 (A) (17 September 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act does not require the document to be complete at the time of signature, but rather at the time of delivery to the creditor. In this case, the suretyship documents were signed by the appellants, completed by their secretaries with all material terms, and then delivered to the respondent bank. At the time of delivery, the documents contained all essential terms and bore the signatures of the sureties. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the creditor unilaterally completes the document after signature and delivery. The court found that the statutory requirements were satisfied, and the...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 152
Parties
Appellant: Dirk Hendrikus Jurgens (Snr); Appellant: Dirk Hendrikus Jurgens (Jnr); Appellant: Geert Dirk Jurgens; Appellant: Jurgens Bodies Caravans & Trailers Company (Pty) Limited; Appellant: Terexko Limited; Appellant: Cornelis Petrus Swart; Respondent: Volkskas Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 1992
Case Number
404/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Hoexter, Hefer, Goldstone, Howie, Kriegler
Legal Topics
Suretyship, General Law Amendment Act Section 6, Summary Judgment, Contract Completion, Signature Authentication
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Suretyship General Law Amendment Act Section 6 Summary Judgment Contract Completion Signature Authentication

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dirk Hendrikus Jurgens (Snr)

Appellant

Dirk Hendrikus Jurgens (Jnr)

Appellant

Geert Dirk Jurgens

Appellant

Jurgens Bodies Caravans & Trailers Company (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Terexko Limited

Appellant

Cornelis Petrus Swart

Appellant

Volkskas Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contracts of suretyship complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956 as amended.
  2. 2 Whether the suretyships were valid where signatures were affixed before completion of material terms.
  3. 3 Whether the timing of signature versus delivery affects the validity of the suretyship under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act does not require the document to be complete at the time of signature, but rather at the time of delivery to the creditor. In this case, the suretyship documents were signed by the appellants, completed by their secretaries with all material terms, and then delivered to the respondent bank. At the time of delivery, the documents contained all essential terms and bore the signatures of the sureties. The court distinguished this situation from cases where the creditor unilaterally completes the document after signature and delivery. The court found that the statutory requirements were satisfied, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.