Tsaperas and Others v Boland Bank (572/93) [1995] ZASCA 150; 1996 (1) SA 719 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 312 (A); (28 November 1995)

Tsaperas and Others v Boland Bank (572/93) [1995] ZASCA 150; 1996 (1) SA 719 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 312 (A); (28 November 1995)

The Court found the appellants' version of an oral agreement releasing them from their suretyship obligations to be dishonest and unsupported by evidence. The written agreements contained clear non-variation clauses requiring written consent from the Bank for any amendment or termination. The oral agreement alleged by the appellants amounted to an amendment of the written terms and was therefore invalid in the absence of written confirmation by the Bank. The Bank was entitled to call up the overdraft and enforce the suretyships. The appeal was dismissed, and costs awarded to the Bank on the attorney and client scale.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 150
Parties
Appellant: Patroklos Tsaperas; Appellant: Haralambos Tsaperas; Appellant: Euro Meat and Food International (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Boland Bank
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1995
Case Number
572/93
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted to Appellants
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Harms, Joubert, Nestadt, Steyn, Scott
Legal Topics
Suretyship, Non Variation Clause, Oral Agreement, Termination of Suretyship, Contract Interpretation
Banking and Finance Commercial and Corporate Suretyship Non Variation Clause Oral Agreement Termination of Suretyship Contract Interpretation

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

Parties

Patroklos Tsaperas

Appellant

Haralambos Tsaperas

Appellant

Euro Meat and Food International (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Boland Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted to Appellants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral agreement of 14 June 1993 released the appellants from their suretyship obligations.
  2. 2 Whether the Bank's claim was due and payable at the time proceedings were instituted.
  3. 3 Whether the non-variation clause in the written agreement precluded oral amendment or cancellation of the suretyship.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the appellants' version of an oral agreement releasing them from their suretyship obligations to be dishonest and unsupported by evidence. The written agreements contained clear non-variation clauses requiring written consent from the Bank for any amendment or termination. The oral agreement alleged by the appellants amounted to an amendment of the written terms and was therefore invalid in the absence of written confirmation by the Bank. The Bank was entitled to call up the overdraft and enforce the suretyships. The appeal was dismissed, and costs awarded to the Bank on the attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded to the respondent on the attorney and client scale.