Venter and Others v Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Ltd. and Another (88/94) [1996] ZASCA 50; 1996 (3) SA 966 (SCA); (13 May 1996)

Venter and Others v Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Ltd. and Another (88/94) [1996] ZASCA 50; 1996 (3) SA 966 (SCA); (13 May 1996)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the undertaking required the appellants to make up any shortfall in the payment of R65,000 to the first respondent, and that the shortfall was to be determined by actual payments received, not merely by the collection of book debts. The first respondent had proved a shortfall of R63,323, as no payments were made from the collection of book debts. The court found consensus existed between the parties, with the first respondent being the principal in the agreement. The alleged secrecy of the agreement did not render it void or contrary to public policy, as it did not prejudice creditors or the court. The first defendant was found to be bound by the...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 50
Parties
Appellant: Colin Venter; Appellant: David Cohen; Appellant: Bay Nominees (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited; Respondent: NT C Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 1996
Case Number
88/94
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the South Eastern Cape Local Division
Outcome
Appeal by the second and third appellants against the judgment in favour of the first respondent dismissed with costs. Appeal against certain costs orders partially upheld and amended. Cross-appeal by the first respondent against the dismissal of its claim against the first appellant upheld with costs. Other appeals...
Judges
Hefer, F H Grosskopf, Nienaber, Schutz, Zulman
Legal Topics
Guarantee and Indemnity, Contractual Consensus, Public Policy, Costs Orders
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Guarantee and Indemnity Contractual Consensus Public Policy Costs Orders

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

Parties

Colin Venter

Appellant

David Cohen

Appellant

Bay Nominees (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited

Respondent

NT C Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From the South Eastern Cape Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are liable to pay the shortfall under the undertaking to the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether consensus existed regarding the identity of the contracting parties to the agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the agreement was void as being contra bonos mores or contrary to public policy due to its alleged secrecy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the undertaking required the appellants to make up any shortfall in the payment of R65,000 to the first respondent, and that the shortfall was to be determined by actual payments received, not merely by the collection of book debts. The first respondent had proved a shortfall of R63,323, as no payments were made from the collection of book debts. The court found consensus existed between the parties, with the first respondent being the principal in the agreement. The alleged secrecy of the agreement did not render it void or contrary to public policy, as it did not prejudice creditors or the court. The first defendant was found to be bound by the...

Court Disposition

Appeal by the second and third appellants against the judgment in favour of the first respondent dismissed with costs. Appeal against certain costs orders partially upheld and amended. Cross-appeal by the first respondent against the dismissal of its claim against the first appellant upheld with costs. Other appeals...

Orders

  • The appeal of the second and third appellants against the order granting judgment in favour of the first respondent in the sum of R63,323, together with interest, is dismissed with costs.
  • The appeal of the second and third appellants against the order for costs arising out of the appellants' application to amend their plea dated 29 May 1992 is allowed, and paragraph (5)(c) of the order of the Court a quo is amended to specify that costs occasioned by the first plaintiff's opposition are to be paid by...