South African Securitisation Programme (Pty) Limited and Others v Bula Technologies (Pty) Limited and Others (45327/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 117 (28 February 2014)

South African Securitisation Programme (Pty) Limited and Others v Bula Technologies (Pty) Limited and Others (45327/11) [2014] ZAGPPHC 117 (28 February 2014)

The court found that the cessions of rights under the credit agreements from DW to Sunlyn, and subsequently to Sasfin and SAS, were valid and proved by uncontradicted evidence of payment. The deed of suretyship signed by the third defendant bound him for all debts of Bula, including those arising after he left Bula's employ, as the language of the instrument was not restricted. The technical arguments regarding endorsements under clause 8 of the main cession agreement were rejected, as the plaintiffs relied on clauses 1 to 4, and no evidence was presented that endorsements were appropriate or required. Quantum of the plaintiffs' claims was conceded and proved through certificates. The...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 117
Parties
Plaintiff: South African Securitisation Programme (Pty) Limited; Plaintiff: Sasfin Bank Limited; Plaintiff: Sunlyn (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Bula Technologies (Pty) Limited; Defendant: Richard Isaacs; Defendant: Leocardo Forbay
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 February 2014
Case Number
45327/11
Procedural Posture
Civil Judgment / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the first plaintiff against the third defendant for the amounts claimed, with interest and costs as between attorney and own client. Judgment to be joint and several with any judgment granted against the first or second defendants.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Cession of Rights, Suretyship Liability, Credit Agreements, Quantum of Damages
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Cession of Rights Suretyship Liability Credit Agreements Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

South African Securitisation Programme (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Sasfin Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Sunlyn (Pty) Limited

Plaintiff

Bula Technologies (Pty) Limited

Defendant

Richard Isaacs

Defendant

Leocardo Forbay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Judgment / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cessions of rights under the credit agreements from DW to Sunlyn, and subsequently to Sasfin and SAS, were valid and proved.
  2. 2 Whether the third defendant is liable under the deed of suretyship for debts arising from the second rental agreement, even after leaving Bula's employ.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs proved payment of the consideration for the cessions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the cessions of rights under the credit agreements from DW to Sunlyn, and subsequently to Sasfin and SAS, were valid and proved by uncontradicted evidence of payment. The deed of suretyship signed by the third defendant bound him for all debts of Bula, including those arising after he left Bula's employ, as the language of the instrument was not restricted. The technical arguments regarding endorsements under clause 8 of the main cession agreement were rejected, as the plaintiffs relied on clauses 1 to 4, and no evidence was presented that endorsements were appropriate or required. Quantum of the plaintiffs' claims was conceded and proved through certificates. The...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the first plaintiff against the third defendant for the amounts claimed, with interest and costs as between attorney and own client. Judgment to be joint and several with any judgment granted against the first or second defendants.

Orders

  • The third defendant must pay the first plaintiff R282,217.25.
  • The third defendant must pay the first plaintiff R138,888.58.