Louw v W P (Ko-operatief) Bpk. (579/95) [1997] ZASCA 96; 1998 (2) SA 418 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 355 (A); (19 November 1997)

Louw v W P (Ko-operatief) Bpk. (579/95) [1997] ZASCA 96; 1998 (2) SA 418 (SCA); [1998] 1 All SA 355 (A); (19 November 1997)

The court held that the appellant's liability as surety to the respondent was not limited to the capital amounts secured by the mortgage bonds but extended to all debts, including future debts and interest, up to the total amount specified in the bonds. The wording of the bonds and the requirements of section 51 of the Deeds Registries Act were satisfied, and the appellant's assets did not exceed her liabilities when her full suretyship obligation was considered. The respondent's charging of compound interest was authorised by its statute, both before and after its amendment, and did not unfairly increase the appellant's liability. The payments made by the respondent to other creditors...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Louw; Respondent: W P (Ko-operatief) Bpk.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 1997
Case Number
579/95
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Sequestration Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
Judges
W Vivier, Eksteen, Schutz, Zulman, Streicher
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Suretyship, Insolvency Act, Prescription of Debt, Interpretation of Security Instruments
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Sequestration Suretyship Insolvency Act Prescription of Debt Interpretation of Security Instruments

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louw

Appellant

W P (Ko-operatief) Bpk.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Final Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's actual insolvency was proven for purposes of final sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's liability as surety to the respondent had prescribed or was limited by the security instruments.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct breached the suretyship contract or unfairly increased the appellant's liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant's liability as surety to the respondent was not limited to the capital amounts secured by the mortgage bonds but extended to all debts, including future debts and interest, up to the total amount specified in the bonds. The wording of the bonds and the requirements of section 51 of the Deeds Registries Act were satisfied, and the appellant's assets did not exceed her liabilities when her full suretyship obligation was considered. The respondent's charging of compound interest was authorised by its statute, both before and after its amendment, and did not unfairly increase the appellant's liability. The payments made by the respondent to other creditors...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Orders

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