Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a suretyship dispute, holding that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success.
Radiant Group (Pty) Ltd v Xelmar (Pty) Ltd and Another (2018/3067) [2022] ZAGPJHC 189 (31 March 2022)
The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a valid suretyship against the second defendant, and estoppel could not cure the statutory defect.
Spar Group Limited v Ditisfolbring (Pty) Limited t/a Spar Vrede (3031/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 157 (4 September 2020)
The court found that the respondent was in arrears and had failed to pay the amount due to Spar, as evidenced by the financial records and annexure FA8. The terms of the notarial bonds entitled Spar to perfect the bonds and take possession of the movable property if its interests were imperilled or if the respondent was in breach. The deadlock between the directors and the ongoing divorce proceedings created a situation where Spar's interests and the reputation of its brand were at risk. Even if there was no breach of the sales agreement, the circumstances justified Spar's entitlement to reli…
Source excerpt
David NO and Others v Phakathi Properties (Pty) Ltd (1323/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 18 (11 August 2017)
The High Court held that the respondent undertook a direct obligation under a mortgage bond to pay the debt, and ordered payment, interest, costs and specific executability.
Absa Bank Limited v Moore and Another (CCT03/16) [2016] ZACC 34; 2017 (1) SA 255 (CC); 2017 (2) BCLR 131 (CC) (21 October 2016)
The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal in a mortgage-bond fraud case, holding the debt discharge and bond cancellation were valid and no enrichment remedy was proved.
Absa Bank Limited v Haremza (12189/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 73 (27 May 2015)
The court found that the defendant's liability as surety was preserved by both the terms of the deed of suretyship and the express provisions of the business rescue plan. The suretyship agreement allowed the plaintiff to compromise or settle with the principal debtor without affecting the surety's liability. The business rescue plan specifically stated that settlement was not intended to affect any rights against third parties who had bound themselves as sureties. The defendant failed to provide any factual basis for her accounting defence, relying only on speculation. The court held that the…
Source excerpt
Odendal and Another v Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd (482/13) [2014] ZASCA 89 (30 May 2014)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a suretyship securing a trust’s loan, holding that the principal debt was sufficiently identified and validly incorporated by reference.
Eley v Lynn & Main Inc (22615/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 94 (18 October 2006)
The court held that, following the reasoning in Jans v Nedcor Bank Ltd, the interruption or delay in prescription applicable to the principal debtor also applies to the surety. Therefore, the thirty-year prescription period for judgment debts under section 11(a)(ii) of the Prescription Act governs the claim against the applicant as surety. The dicta in Bulsara v Jordan & Co (Conshu Ltd) were either obiter or, if not, the more recent and authoritative decision in Jans must be followed. As a result, the respondent's claim against the applicant had not prescribed, and the application for resciss…
Source excerpt
Commissioner for Custome & Excise v Standard General Insurance Company Ltd. (507/98) [2000] ZASCA 55; 2001 (1) SA 978 (SCA) (29 September 2000)
The court held that section 99(5) of the Customs and Excise Act creates an expiry period, not prescription, so the surety’s liability ended after two years.
Nedbank Ltd. v Van Zyl (349/88) [1990] ZASCA 12; 1990 (2) SA 469 (AD); [1990] 4 All SA 637 (AD) (15 March 1990)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that under South African law, a contract of suretyship is accessory and must relate to a principal obligation owed by another. Where a spouse married in community of property purports to stand surety for the debt of the other spouse, they are in fact standing surety for their own debt, as both are joint debtors for obligations incurred during the marriage. Such a contract is a nullity and unenforceable. The dissolution of the marriage and community of property did not retrospectively validate the suretyship, nor did the evidence establish liability for post-nu…
Source excerpt
Explore more
