- Flynote
-
Contract – suretyship clause embodied in credit agreement –
application for special leave to appeal to the SCA in terms of s 17(2)(d) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 – Jurisdiction – whether the applicants validly consented in their personal capacity to the increased monetary jurisdiction of the magistrates' court in
terms of s 45 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944 – whether the respondent had a duty to draw the applicants' attention to the existence of the suretyship clause – whether the applicants were, on the basis of iustus error, not bound by the terms of the suretyship as embodied in the credit application – the applicants validly consented to the increased monetary jurisdiction of the magistrates' court - the duty to inform the applicants of the existence of the suretyship clause did not arise - iustus error defence not sustainable on the facts – no prospects of success on appeal – the application dismissed.
This document is 391.5 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 10
Judgment 7
- Bothma-Batho Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk (802/2012) [2013] ZASCA 176 (28 November 2013)
- City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Blair Atholl Homeowners Association (106 of 2018) [2018] ZASCA 176 (3 December 2018)
- Cook v Morrison and Another (1319/2017) [2019] ZASCA 8 (8 March 2019)
- Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Moabi (959 of 2015) [2017] ZASCA 85 (2 June 2017)
- Makhanya v University of Zululand (218/2008) [2009] ZASCA 69 (29 May 2009)
- Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (920/2010) [2012] ZASCA 13 (16 March 2012)
- Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd v Du Toit (176/2010) [2011] ZASCA 34 (28 March 2011)