South Africa Case Law

Government Employees Pension Fund v Phemelo Ontla (Pty) Ltd t/a #Braai and Pizza - Rustenburg and Others (1752/2023)

Government Employees Pension Fund v Phemelo Ontla (Pty) Ltd t/a #Braai and Pizza - Rustenburg and Others (1752/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 134 (5 August 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1752/2023

Judge

J.T. Maodi

High Court summary judgment in favor of the Government Employees Pension Fund for arrear lease charges, despite a reliance on an arbitration clause.

• Summary Judgment
• Lease Agreement
• Suretyship
• Liquidated Claim
• Arbitration Clause
• Summary-judgment

Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024)

Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6535/2024

Judge

Thulare

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a suretyship dispute, holding that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success.

• Suretyship Liability
• Principal Debt
• Accessory Obligation
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Suretyship
• Principal-debt

Nedbank Limited v Matthys Johannes Lourens Wessels NO and Others (6626/2024)

Nedbank Limited v Matthys Johannes Lourens Wessels NO and Others (6626/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 211 (10 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6626/2024

Judge

Ntanga AJ

The High Court refused summary judgment, holding that the defendants raised a bona fide and triable defence based on alleged payments extinguishing the debt.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Settlement Agreement
• Extinguishment Of Debt
• Leave To Defend
• Summary-judgment

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135)

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135) [2025] ZAGPJHC 240 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/4135

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the default judgment was erroneously sought and granted against the applicant because the deed of suretyship relied upon was invalid and did not comply with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The particulars of claim misstated the position reflected in the deed of suretyship, and no rectification was pleaded or obtained. The registrar granted judgment without a legal foundation, constituting a procedural error under Rule 42(1)(a). The applicant was absent as envisaged by the rule, as there was no evidence he was notified that default judgment was being…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Suretyship
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42
• General Law Amendment Act
• Rectification

Abedair Aviation Limited and Another v National Airways Corporation Pty Ltd (2022/027413)

Abedair Aviation Limited and Another v National Airways Corporation Pty Ltd (2022/027413) [2025] ZAGPJHC 643 (26 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/027413

Judge

Aucamp

The court dismissed an application to declare or rescind a default judgment, finding jurisdiction was established and the suretyship was validly signed.

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Default Judgment
• Suretyship Requirements
• Rectification Of Contract
• Forum Selection Clause
• Jurisdiction-of-high-court

ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd v Setoil (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/003646)

ABSA Bank (Pty) Ltd v Setoil (Pty) Ltd and Others (2022/003646) [2025] ZAGPJHC 606 (10 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/003646

Judge

E Dreyer

Summary judgment was granted against sureties after the court found no bona fide defence, held clause 11 was discretionary, and rejected the duress defence.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Duress
• Contractual Defences
• Summary-judgment
• Contract-defences

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Brazen Freight SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/101129)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Brazen Freight SA (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/101129) [2025] ZAGPJHC 532 (30 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/101129

Judge

M V Noko

The court found that the applicant had established its claim against the first and second respondents, who did not oppose the application, and granted judgment against them for the amounts claimed. Regarding the third respondent, the court held that, in the absence of a Shifren clause requiring written termination, oral termination of the suretyship agreement is possible in law. However, the third respondent's evidence regarding oral termination required testing through cross-examination, as there was a bona fide dispute of fact unsuitable for resolution on affidavit. The court therefore refe…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Oral Cancellation Of Suretyship
• Amendment Of Notice Of Motion
• Rule 13 Third Party Procedure
• Certificate Of Balance
• Costs Reservation

Absa Bank Limited v Tshabalala (3953/2024)

Absa Bank Limited v Tshabalala (3953/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 142 (16 May 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3953/2024

Judge

Opperman

Summary judgment was granted for Absa Bank on suretyship and mortgage loan debts. The court dismissed res judicata and non-joinder objections and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Non Joinder
• Res Judicata
• Mortgage Loan
• Contract Enforcement

Blue House Investments (Pty) Ltd v Uys and Others (16 May 2025) (20261/2024)

Blue House Investments (Pty) Ltd v Uys and Others (16 May 2025) (20261/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 205 (16 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20261/2024

Judge

Slingers

The court granted relief allowing the applicant to perfect and register a pledged member’s interest after loan and pledge breaches, despite a later business rescue plan.

• Pledge And Cession
• Suretyship
• Business Rescue
• Declaratory Relief
• Contractual Breach
• Pledge-and-cession

Firstrand Bank Limited v Badenhorst and Others (5793/2023)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Badenhorst and Others (5793/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 97 (14 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5793/2023

Judge

Kganyago

The court found that the trust deed, when read as a whole, permitted the trustees to appoint a third party to act as agent and sign documents on their behalf. The resolution signed by all trustees expressly authorised the second respondent to sign the suretyship, and this was not ultra vires the trust deed. The respondents' reliance on clause 9.1 was misplaced, as clause 7.2 allowed for such appointment. The suretyship was therefore valid and enforceable. The first to third and eighth respondents were in default and did not oppose the merits. The applicant made out a cogent case for judgment…

Source excerpt

• Suretyship
• Trust Deed Authority
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Default Judgment
• Joint And Several Liability