Van Den Berg and Others v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (A170/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 967 (25 November 2015)

Van Den Berg and Others v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (A170/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 967 (25 November 2015)

The court held that the deeds of suretyship complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act, 50 of 1956. Although the appellants signed the documents before their names and addresses were inserted, their signatures authenticated the documents and their intention to bind themselves as sureties was clear. The subsequent addition of their names and addresses did not alter the terms of the contract or affect its validity. Extrinsic evidence, including the appellants' admission of their signatures, was sufficient to identify the sureties. The court applied a common sense approach and found that the requirements of section 6 were met, and the suretyships were valid.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 967
Parties
Appellant: Johannes Lodewikus Van Den Berg; Appellant: Elia Christiaan Landman; Appellant: Johannes Rudolph Visagie; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 November 2015
Case Number
A170/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
C Pretorius, W Tlhapi, N Ranchod
Legal Topics
Suretyship, General Law Amendment Act Section 6, Contract Formalities, Extrinsic Evidence, Interpretation of Written Instruments
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Suretyship General Law Amendment Act Section 6 Contract Formalities Extrinsic Evidence Interpretation of Written Instruments

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johannes Lodewikus Van Den Berg

Appellant

Elia Christiaan Landman

Appellant

Johannes Rudolph Visagie

Appellant

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two deeds of suretyship complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act, 50 of 1956.
  2. 2 Whether sureties can be identified where their names do not appear on the documents at the time of signing, but their signatures do.
  3. 3 Whether subsequent insertion of names and addresses by the creditor's representative affects validity under section 6.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the deeds of suretyship complied with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act, 50 of 1956. Although the appellants signed the documents before their names and addresses were inserted, their signatures authenticated the documents and their intention to bind themselves as sureties was clear. The subsequent addition of their names and addresses did not alter the terms of the contract or affect its validity. Extrinsic evidence, including the appellants' admission of their signatures, was sufficient to identify the sureties. The court applied a common sense approach and found that the requirements of section 6 were met, and the suretyships were valid.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs include those pertaining to the leave to appeal in the court a quo and the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.