South Africa Case Law

Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Vam Zyl (205/2018)

Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Vam Zyl (205/2018) [2019] ZANCHC 64 (6 September 2019)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

205/2018

Judge

Coetzee

The court found that the business rescue proceedings and the certificate of substantial implementation did not extinguish the principal debt nor release the surety from liability. The deed of suretyship was validly signed by the defendant, who intended to be bound as surety and co-principal debtor. The defendant's claim that he signed only as a witness was rejected based on the evidence and the wording of the deed. The limitation clause in the suretyship was found to be void for vagueness and did not limit the defendant's liability. The plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the claimed amoun…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Business Rescue
• Contract Interpretation
• Rectification
• Enforcement Of Suretyship

Destination Capital (Pty) Ltd v Xekalos and Others (45993/2013)

Destination Capital (Pty) Ltd v Xekalos and Others (45993/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 379 (16 May 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45993/2013

Judge

R M Keightley

The court granted judgment on a suretyship debt, rejected authority and signature defences, and declared two of the fifth respondent’s properties specially executable.

• Suretyship Agreement
• Enforcement Of Suretyship
• Default Judgment
• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Suretyship
• Default-judgment

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd v Bestvest 153 (Pty) Ltd and Others (22698/2009)

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd v Bestvest 153 (Pty) Ltd and Others (22698/2009) [2013] ZAWCHC 61 (31 January 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22698/2009

Judge

P.A.L. Gamble

The court found that the sureties are liable to the applicant under the deed of suretyship for the obligations of Bestvest. The quantum of the claim was disputed only in respect of R125,400.04, with the remainder admitted. The applicant sought judgment only for the undisputed capital sum and interest calculated according to the agreed formula. The National Credit Act does not apply to the suretyship, as the principal debtor is a juristic person and the agreement is a large agreement, supported by established case law. The applicant's discretion not to advance further funds was exercised reaso…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• National Credit Act
• Enforcement Of Suretyship
• Quantum Of Debt
• Contractual Discretion
• Interest Calculation