South Africa Case Law

Van Louw and Others v Land Bank and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (14287/2014)

Van Louw and Others v Land Bank and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa t/a Land Bank (14287/2014) [2025] ZAWCHC 44 (14 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14287/2014

Judges

Le Grange, Wille, Sher

The High Court dismissed sureties’ appeal, holding they failed to prove prejudicial conduct by Land Bank or any breached legal duty. A waiver clause also barred the defence.

• Suretyship Liability
• Prejudice To Surety
• Waiver Of Defence
• Contractual Interpretation
• Suretyship-liability
• Prejudice-to-surety

Singh N.O and Others v ABSA Bank Limited (5034/2020P)

Singh N.O and Others v ABSA Bank Limited (5034/2020P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 74 (28 July 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5034/2020P

Judge

Mossop

The High Court refused leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no basis to disturb its earlier judgment granting costs and judgment debt.

• Leave To Appeal
• Suretyship
• Discretionary Affidavit Admission
• Prejudice To Surety
• Costs Order
• Leave-to-appeal

ABSA Bank Limited v Singh N.O. and Others (5034/2020P)

ABSA Bank Limited v Singh N.O. and Others (5034/2020P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 40 (12 April 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5034/2020P

Judge

Mossop

The court held sureties liable on deeds of suretyship, finding no discharge from the bank’s failure to obtain additional security before advancing the loan.

• Suretyship
• Loan Agreement
• Condition Precedent
• Prejudice To Surety
• Certificate Of Balance
• Contractual Interpretation

Dominick v Nedbank Limited (20463/14)

Dominick v Nedbank Limited (20463/14) [2015] ZASCA 160 (13 November 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20463/14

Judges

Mpati, Cachalia, Petse, Dambuza, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants, as sureties, were not entitled to release from their obligations under the suretyship agreements. The court found that any prejudice suffered by the appellants did not result from a breach of legal duty or obligation by Nedbank. The bank acted within its rights under the principal agreement and the suretyships, including the extension of overdraft facilities and the application of set-off. The transfers from the overdraft account to the Agri account were made at the request of Puricare or its attorneys, and Nedbank was not in breach of any…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship Liability
• Prejudice To Surety
• Set Off
• Extension Of Banking Facilities
• Release Of Surety

Khula Enterprise Finance Ltd v Geldenhuys and Another (745/11)

Khula Enterprise Finance Ltd v Geldenhuys and Another (745/11) [2012] ZASCA 165 (21 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

745/11

Judges

Mthiyane DP, Navsa, Heher, Cachalia, Petse

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sureties remained liable and that the creditor’s cross-default clause allowed immediate enforcement without prior notice.

• Suretyship Liability
• Contract Interpretation
• Cross Default Clause
• Prejudice To Surety
• Acceleration Of Debt
• Suretyship-liability

Standard Bank of South Africa v Norris (480/2012)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Norris (480/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 142 (28 June 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

480/2012

Judge

D H Zondi

A bank obtained summary judgment against a surety after the court rejected a defence that the creditor prejudiced him during the principal debtor’s liquidation.

• Suretyship
• Summary Judgment
• Liquidation
• Prejudice To Surety
• Summary-judgment
• Banking-law

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gaskell (3102/07)

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Gaskell (3102/07) [2010] ZAKZPHC 24 (5 May 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

3102/07

Judge

Mnguni

The court confirmed the final sequestration of the respondent’s estate, rejecting disputes about the debt, alleged prejudice under suretyship, and lack of benefit to creditors.

• Sequestration
• Suretyship
• Creditor Locus Standi
• Advantage To Creditors
• Prejudice To Surety
• Balance Of Probabilities

S v Dyantyi (ECJ 070/2005)

S v Dyantyi (ECJ 070/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 31 (8 September 2005)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA 483/2004

Judges

RJW Jones, JD Pickering

The court held that the bank's refusal of the appellant's conditional offer to purchase the vehicle for the full outstanding balance did not discharge the appellant from his suretyship obligations. The bank acted within its contractual and statutory rights under the instalment sale agreement and the Credit Agreements Act by repossessing and selling the vehicle after the principal debtor's default. Any prejudice suffered by the appellant was not the result of a breach of legal duty by the bank, but rather the consequence of the principal debtor's default and the lawful exercise of the bank's r…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship Liability
• Credit Agreements Act
• Prejudice To Surety
• Instalment Sale Agreements

Di Giulio v First National Bank of South Africa Limited (A1080/2001)

Di Giulio v First National Bank of South Africa Limited (A1080/2001) [2002] ZAWCHC 33; 2002 (6) SA 281 (C) (19 June 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A1080/2001

Judges

D H Van Zyl, J M Hlophe

Appeal in a suretyship matter dismissed. The court held the appellant failed to prove the bank breached its mandate or that any irregular payments caused real prejudice.

• Suretyship
• Mandate In Banking
• Onus Of Proof
• Prejudice To Surety
• Unauthorised Signatures
• Bank-mandate