Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal in a suretyship dispute, holding that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success.
First Rand Bank Limited v Cilliers and Another (24/040313) [2025] ZAGPPHC 598 (3 June 2025)
The High Court granted First Rand Bank judgment against sureties, allowed special execution against their property, set a reserve price, and rejected excussion and non-joinder defences.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Molutsi and Another (2024/026824) [2025] ZAGPPHC 538 (27 May 2025)
Bank obtained judgment for the outstanding loan amount and execution against mortgaged property after the court found section 129 notice compliance and rejected housing-based objection.
ABSA Bank Limited and Another v Mafahleni Engineers and Projects Managers CC and Another (8149/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 52 (20 May 2025)
Summary judgment was granted for ABSA and a mortgaged vacant property was declared specially executable, with a reserve price of R1.5 million.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Nel (022940/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 617 (13 May 2025)
The High Court granted provisional sequestration, finding a reasonable prospect of benefit to creditors despite the respondent’s claim of hopeless insolvency.
BKB Limited v De Bod and Others (14384/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 195 (9 May 2025)
The defendants failed to establish a bona fide defence to the plaintiff’s claim for summary judgment. The principal debt and validity of the suretyship agreement are not disputed. The alleged unlawful interference and defamation by the plaintiff are not substantiated by facts, quantifiable loss, or legal authority that would release the sureties from liability. The affidavits provided do not identify specific agents or quantify any prejudice suffered. The alleged counterclaims are unquantified and have not been pursued by SAFAM, precluding reliance on Rule 22(4). The defences raised are perso…
Source excerpt
Kaap Agri Boedery v Potgieter (1196/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 80 (25 April 2025)
The court found that the business rescue plan adopted and implemented for Somerhoek expressly preserved the plaintiff's right to pursue claims against the defendant as surety, as stated in clause 5.2.2. The deed of suretyship also contained clauses that maintained the surety's liability despite arrangements, compromise, or release of the principal debtor. The general principle that the discharge of the principal debtor releases the surety does not apply where the discharge agreement or the deed of suretyship reserves the creditor's rights against the surety. The court interpreted the business…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v Baba (6535/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 176 (25 April 2025)
The High Court granted Nedbank judgment against a surety for R15 million, finding no bona fide defence and rejecting postponement pending related litigation.
Kpmm Roads and Earthworks (Pty) Ltd and Others v Credit Guarantee Insurance Corporation of Africa Limited (42704/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 352 (4 April 2025)
The court found that while the applicants raised a novel issue regarding the interpretation of the guarantee, they failed to demonstrate that it was triable under established legal principles for on demand guarantees. The indemnity was not void for vagueness, and the arguments on this point added nothing new. Regarding the interest rate, the court acknowledged that correcting a patent error mero motu may be contentious, and there is a reasonable prospect another court could reach a different conclusion on this issue. Consequently, leave to appeal is granted, allowing the applicants to raise a…
Source excerpt
Nedbank Limited v WIID Group of Companies (Pty) Ltd and Others (4330/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 97 (19 March 2025)
The court found that the plaintiff had pleaded and verified its registration as a credit provider and that it was not necessary to attach the registration certificate to the particulars of claim. The certificate annexed to the summary judgment affidavit merely verified what was already pleaded and did not constitute inadmissible new evidence. The defendants' denial of receipt of section 129 notices was unsupported by factual allegations and amounted to a bare denial, insufficient to rebut the presumption of delivery established by the plaintiff's track-and-trace reports. The dispute regarding…
Source excerpt
Explore more
