South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Mavie (2023/022069)

Nedbank Limited v Mavie (2023/022069) [2024] ZAGPJHC 957 (25 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/022069

Judge

Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court held that the respondent, having executed suretyships as co-principal debtor and expressly renounced the benefit of excussion, may be sued directly and independently of the principal debtor, Keliana. The principal debts are due and payable due to Keliana's breaches, including default on payments and the institution of liquidation proceedings, which triggered acceleration clauses in the agreements. The quantum of indebtedness is established by certificates of balance and supporting bank statements, which are valid as liquid documents and prima facie proof. The absence of an answering…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Co Principal Debtor Liability
• Certificate Of Balance
• Suspensive Conditions
• Waiver Of Excussion
• Liquid Document

Tuna v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Limited (A5001/2015)

Tuna v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Limited (A5001/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 298 (18 November 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5001/2015

Judges

Van Oosten, Wepener, Mphahlele

The court held that a business rescue moratorium under s 133(1) of the Companies Act does not extend to a surety and co-principal debtor.

• Suretyship
• Business Rescue
• Statutory Moratorium
• Co Principal Debtor Liability
• Business-rescue
• Statutory-moratorium

Qahoosein and Another v Bharshila Liquor store CC (A431/2011)

Qahoosein and Another v Bharshila Liquor store CC (A431/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 499 (4 December 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A431/2011

Judges

NS Masango, N F Kgomo, H J Fabricius

The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish a binding agreement between the respondent and the second appellant. The respondent's reliance on a brief oral assent ('yes') and the conduct of the second appellant did not amount to an explicit, implied, or tacit agreement to assume liability as a co-principal debtor. The contradictions in the second appellant's testimony and his previous conduct in other matters were not sufficient to prove the existence of such an agreement. The court held that the essential terms of the alleged contract were not discussed or agreed upon, a…

Source excerpt

• Goods Sold And Delivered
• Co Principal Debtor Liability
• Contract Formation
• Oral Agreement
• Burden Of Proof

Gearhouse South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Nqulo and Another (2006/8373)

Gearhouse South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Nqulo and Another (2006/8373) [2010] ZAGPJHC 163 (18 June 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2006/8373

Judge

P.A Meyer

The High Court held that the second defendant did not bind himself as surety and co-principal debtor, so the claim against him was dismissed with costs.

• Suretyship
• Co Principal Debtor Liability
• Contractual Interpretation
• Co-principal-debtor-liability
• Contractual-interpretation