Naude and Another v Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (23867/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 464 (22 June 2022)

Naude and Another v Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another (23867/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 464 (22 June 2022)

The court found that the guarantee was principal in nature, as expressly stated in clause 6, and that only Guardrisk, as guarantor, could raise disputes regarding compliance with its requirements. GD Irons and Mr Naude, as applicants, had no standing to challenge the payment process under the guarantee. The court further held that section 133 of the Companies Act did not apply to the contractual relationship between Steyn City and Guardrisk, as neither party was in business rescue and the enforcement action was not directed against GD Irons. The applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as their grounds were either not supported by the facts or were...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 464
Parties
Applicant: Etienne Jacques Naude; Applicant: GD Irons (Pty) Ltd (In Business Rescue); Respondent: Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2022
Case Number
23867/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 10 May 2022.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Construction Guarantee, Business Rescue, Strict Compliance With Guarantee, Enforcement Action, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Construction Guarantee Business Rescue Strict Compliance With Guarantee Enforcement Action Reasonable Prospects of Success

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

Parties

Etienne Jacques Naude

Applicant

GD Irons (Pty) Ltd (In Business Rescue)

Applicant

Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Guardrisk Insurance Company Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Dated 10 May 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for payment under the construction guarantee were strictly complied with.
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee was principal or accessory in nature.
  3. 3 Whether section 133 of the Companies Act applies to the enforcement of the guarantee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the guarantee was principal in nature, as expressly stated in clause 6, and that only Guardrisk, as guarantor, could raise disputes regarding compliance with its requirements. GD Irons and Mr Naude, as applicants, had no standing to challenge the payment process under the guarantee. The court further held that section 133 of the Companies Act did not apply to the contractual relationship between Steyn City and Guardrisk, as neither party was in business rescue and the enforcement action was not directed against GD Irons. The applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as their grounds were either not supported by the facts or were...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.