South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (Previously Great Ideas Production Company (Pty) Limited) (885/2019)

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (Previously Great Ideas Production Company (Pty) Limited) (885/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 230 (1 September 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

885/2019

Judge

Baartman

Leave to appeal was refused in a banking dispute over demand guarantees, with the court holding the applicant had paid its own debt and shown no prospects of success.

• Demand Guarantee
• Counter Guarantee
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Leave To Appeal
• Enrichment Claim
• Demand-guarantee

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (885/2019)

Nedbank Limited v Xanita (Pty) Limited (885/2019) [2023] ZAWCHC 144 (12 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

885/2019

Judge

Baartman

The High Court held that Nedbank’s payment under demand guarantees discharged its own debt, not Xanita’s. It dismissed Nedbank’s recourse and enrichment claims.

• Demand Guarantee
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Unjustified Enrichment
• Counter Guarantee Liability
• Demand-guarantee
• Suretyship-vs-guarantee

Norman v Cashflow Capital (Pty) Ltd (19832/2020)

Norman v Cashflow Capital (Pty) Ltd (19832/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 138 (8 March 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19832/2020

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that service of summons was effected in accordance with the rules, and the applicant's explanation for default was reasonable but not decisive. The central issue was whether the business rescue plan extinguished the applicant's liability under the guarantee. The guarantee was interpreted as a demand guarantee, not a suretyship, and its terms expressly preserved the respondent's rights regardless of business rescue proceedings. Section 154(2) of the Companies Act only precludes enforcement of debts against the company, not against a guarantor. The business rescue plan did not e…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Demand Guarantee
• Business Rescue
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Section 154 Companies Act

Standard Bank of SA Limited v Lantau Trading 365 (Pty) Limited and Others (07550/2019)

Standard Bank of SA Limited v Lantau Trading 365 (Pty) Limited and Others (07550/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 462 (8 October 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

07550/2019

Judge

PL Carstensen

The High Court confirmed cancellation of two finance agreements, authorised attachment of the financed assets, postponed damages, and ordered costs against the respondents.

• Cancellation Of Agreement
• Certificate Of Balance
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Damages Postponement
• Asset Attachment
• Cancellation-of-agreement

Real People (Pty) Ltd v LVK Trading (Pty) Ltd t/a Chesanyama Boksburg and Another (39782/2017)

Real People (Pty) Ltd v LVK Trading (Pty) Ltd t/a Chesanyama Boksburg and Another (39782/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 635 (22 September 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39782/2017

Judge

HR FOURIE

The court held that the summary judgment application was properly brought within the fifteen-day period prescribed by Rule 32(2), as delivery is defined as both service and filing. The defendants' point in limine was dismissed. The second defendant's defence regarding lack of knowledge of the amount claimed was found not to be bona fide, as she had abandoned the business and made no effort to ascertain the indebtedness. The argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate its damages by not perfecting the notarial bond was rejected, as the plaintiff was enforcing a contractual right to repaymen…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Credit Guarantee
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee
• Mitigation Of Loss

Afrasia Special Opportunities Fund (Pty) Ltd v Royal Anthem Investments 130 (Pty) Ltd (18299/13, 12562/15)

Afrasia Special Opportunities Fund (Pty) Ltd v Royal Anthem Investments 130 (Pty) Ltd (18299/13, 12562/15) [2016] ZAWCHC 90; [2016] 4 All SA 16 (WCC) (28 July 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18299/13, 12562/15

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court dismissed AfrAsia’s claim and rectification bid, holding it had not proved Paget’s authority to bind Royal Anthem to the limited guarantee.

• Mortgage Bond Rectification
• Ostensible Authority
• Limited Guarantee
• Companies Act Section 20 7
• Deeds Registries Act
• Suretyship Vs Guarantee