Mampeule v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd and Others (A5067/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 124 (22 February 2017)

Mampeule v South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd and Others (A5067/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 124 (22 February 2017)

The court held that the appellant, as a director at the time the rental agreement was contracted, is personally liable for the full liability arising from that agreement, including finance charges, even though the default and acceleration of payment occurred after his resignation. The acceleration clause does not affect the scope of liability, as the debt was contracted during his period of office. The court found the reasoning in South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited and Others v Leppan Beech Incorporated and Others persuasive and followed it. Costs were awarded on the attorney and own client scale as per the rental agreement, since the appellant did not contest this aspect.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 124
Parties
Appellant: Sekgware Bernard Mampeule; Respondent: South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd; Respondent: Sasfin Bank Limited; Respondent: Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 February 2017
Case Number
A5067/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Lower Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and own client scale.
Judges
WHG van der Linde, DSS Moshidi, FHD Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Director Liability, Company Debt, Rental Agreement, Attorney and Own Client Costs
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Director Liability Company Debt Rental Agreement Attorney and Own Client Costs

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sekgware Bernard Mampeule

Appellant

South African Securitisation Programme (RF) Ltd

Respondent

Sasfin Bank Limited

Respondent

Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Lower Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is a director personally liable for debts contracted by a company during their period of office, even if payment becomes due after resignation?
  2. 2 Does an acceleration clause in a rental agreement affect the scope of director liability under the Attorneys' Act and Companies Act?
  3. 3 Should costs be awarded on the attorney and own client scale as per the rental agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant, as a director at the time the rental agreement was contracted, is personally liable for the full liability arising from that agreement, including finance charges, even though the default and acceleration of payment occurred after his resignation. The acceleration clause does not affect the scope of liability, as the debt was contracted during his period of office. The court found the reasoning in South African Securitisation Program (RF) Limited and Others v Leppan Beech Incorporated and Others persuasive and followed it. Costs were awarded on the attorney and own client scale as per the rental agreement, since the appellant did not contest this aspect.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the appellant on the scale as between attorney and own client.