Tattersall and Another v Nedcor Bank Ltd. (340/93) [1995] ZASCA 30; 1995 (3) SA 222 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 365 (A) (28 March 1995)

Tattersall and Another v Nedcor Bank Ltd. (340/93) [1995] ZASCA 30; 1995 (3) SA 222 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 365 (A) (28 March 1995)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent bank's application was properly authorised, as the evidence provided, including affidavits and internal documentation, was sufficient in the absence of a genuine challenge. The court found that the loan agreement required monthly repayments to commence on the earliest of several specified dates, which was 15 August 1991, not 15 January 1993 as contended by the appellants. The appellants' version of a prior oral agreement and their request for rectification were rejected, as their subsequent conduct and correspondence indicated acceptance of the earlier repayment date. The pending MBH litigation regarding the property did not excuse...

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 30
Parties
Appellant: Nigel Colin Tattersall; Appellant: William Allan De Beer; Respondent: Nedcor Bank Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 1995
Case Number
340/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Grant of Judgment in Opposed Motion Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the fees of two counsel.
Judges
Nestadt, Joubert, Eksteen, Van den Heever, Olivier
Legal Topics
Authority to Institute Proceedings, Loan Agreement Interpretation, Rectification of Contract, Stay of Proceedings, Mortgage Bond Enforcement
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Authority to Institute Proceedings Loan Agreement Interpretation Rectification of Contract Stay of Proceedings Mortgage Bond Enforcement

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Colin Tattersall

Appellant

William Allan De Beer

Appellant

Nedcor Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Grant of Judgment in Opposed Motion Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application was properly authorised by the respondent bank.
  2. 2 Whether the application was premature due to the alleged commencement date for repayment.
  3. 3 Whether pending litigation regarding the property excused repayment of the loan.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent bank's application was properly authorised, as the evidence provided, including affidavits and internal documentation, was sufficient in the absence of a genuine challenge. The court found that the loan agreement required monthly repayments to commence on the earliest of several specified dates, which was 15 August 1991, not 15 January 1993 as contended by the appellants. The appellants' version of a prior oral agreement and their request for rectification were rejected, as their subsequent conduct and correspondence indicated acceptance of the earlier repayment date. The pending MBH litigation regarding the property did not excuse...

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the appeal, including the fees of two counsel.