South Africa Case Law

Van Zyl v Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd (279/2020)

Van Zyl v Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd (279/2020) [2021] ZASCA 67; [2021] 3 All SA 395 (SCA); 2021 (5) SA 171 (SCA) (3 June 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

279/2020

Judges

Wallis, Mbha, Schippers, Phatshoane, Rogers

Section 154(2) of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not discharge the principal debt but merely bars enforcement against the company beyond what is provided in the business rescue plan. The accessory nature of suretyship does not automatically result in the discharge of the surety's liability unless the principal debt is extinguished. The deed of suretyship in this case contains express provisions preserving the creditor's rights against the surety, even in the event of compromise, liquidation, or business rescue. The statutory bar under section 154(2) is a defence personal to the company and…

Source excerpt

• Business Rescue
• Suretyship Liability
• Companies Act Section 154
• Statutory Compromise
• Contract Interpretation

Blignaut v Stalcor (Pty) Ltd and Others (3249/2013)

Blignaut v Stalcor (Pty) Ltd and Others (3249/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 234; 2014 (6) SA 398 (FB) (14 November 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3249/2013

Judge

L. le R. POHL

The court held that business rescue under section 154 does not release a surety or co-principal debtor, and dismissed the stay application with costs.

• Business Rescue
• Suretyship Liability
• Statutory Compromise
• Companies Act 71 Of 2008
• Stay Of Execution
• Business-rescue