Barclays Western Bank v Pretorius

Last updated

Barclays Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure; it was an appeal of Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius.

Contents

Facts

Provisional sentence had been claimed on two surety bonds. The feature of the litigation which brought it before the court was that neither bond contained an acknowledgment by the defendant that she was indebted to the plaintiff in a specific amount; nor did either bond contain an unequivocal promise by her to pay the plaintiff a definite sum.

Issue

The question confronting the court was whether such a bond could support a claim for provisional sentence.

Law

The leading case in this area of the law was Union Share Agency Investment Ltd v Spain . "It is the essence of the doctrine of provisional sentence," the court held in that case, "that the acknowledgement of debt or the undertaking to pay should be clear and certain on the face of the document itself, and that no extrinsic evidence should be required to establish the indebtedness."

In the case of Bee-Jay Ltd v Knights-Trench , the court found that it was "fundamental that a document, to support a claim for provisional sentence, must be clear and certain as to the indebtedness [.... T]he indebtedness cannot be clear and certain if the amount thereof is uncertain."

According to the court in Lagerwey v Rich and Others ,

One starts with the proposition that provisional sentence, being an extraordinary remedy whereunder the plaintiff enjoys special and important advantages, is granted only in a case which falls strictly within a particular class. It is granted only when the plaintiff has a claim for the payment of money supported by strong prima facie proof in the form of a liquid document which the defendant has signed, or to which he is deemed to have given his assent. A document is liquid, in the context of an action for provisional sentence, only if it reflects unequivocally a present indebtedness by the defendant in a specific sum of money.

Judgment

After considering these authorities, the court held that provisional sentence could not be granted on a surety bond which, while limiting the surety's liability to a prescribed maximum, covered a principal indebtedness in an indefinite amount, without even acknowledging that any at all existed. No subsequent certificate, as provided for in the bond, indicating the amount of the indebtedness, could cure the intrinsic illiquidity of such a document.

Didcott J thus took a stand against the expansion of the provisional-sentence procedure, focusing on its disadvantages and oppressive byproducts. The procedure is recognised, however, as a commercial necessity, since most of the time defendants do not actually have a defence.

Related Research Articles

A plaintiff is the party who initiates a lawsuit before a court. By doing so, the plaintiff seeks a legal remedy. If this search is successful, the court will issue judgment in favor of the plaintiff and make the appropriate court order. "Plaintiff" is the term used in civil cases in most English-speaking jurisdictions, the notable exceptions being England and Wales, where a plaintiff has, since the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules in 1999, been known as a "claimant" and Scotland, where the party has always been known as the "pursuer". In criminal cases, the prosecutor brings the case against the defendant, but the key complaining party is often called the "complainant".

Assumpsit, or more fully, action in assumpsit, was a form of action at common law used to enforce what are now called obligations arising in tort and contract; and in some common law jurisdictions, unjust enrichment. The origins of the action can be traced to the 14th century, when litigants seeking justice in the royal courts turned from the writs of covenant and debt to the trespass on the case.

A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant's appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until an appeal is over.

Asset freezing is a form of interim or interlocutory injunction which prevents a defendant to an action from dealing with or dissipating its assets so as to frustrate a potential judgment. It is widely recognised in other common law jurisdictions and such orders can be made to have world-wide effect. It is variously construed as part of a court's inherent jurisdiction to restrain breaches of its process.

<i>Connecticut v. Doehr</i> 1991 United States Supreme Court case

Connecticut v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state statute authorizing prejudgment attachment of a defendant's real property upon the filing of an action without prior notice or hearing, a showing of extraordinary circumstances, or a requirement that the plaintiff post a bond violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

The South African law of delict engages primarily with 'the circumstances in which one person can claim compensation from another for harm that has been suffered'. JC Van der Walt and Rob Midgley define a delict 'in general terms [...] as a civil wrong', and more narrowly as 'wrongful and blameworthy conduct which causes harm to a person'. Importantly, however, the civil wrong must be an actionable one, resulting in liability on the part of the wrongdoer or tortfeasor.

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Saunderson and Others is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) by Howie P, Cameron JA, Nugent JA, Jafta JA and Mlambo JA on 23 November 2005, with judgment handed down on 15 December.

Maseko v Maseko, heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Lazarus AJ from 22 to 25 October, 1990, with judgment handed down on 16 November, is an important case in South African contract law, with its stipulation, on the question of legality, that contracts designed to mislead creditors are immoral and against public policy.

Weinberg v Olivier is an important case in South African contract law, especially in the area of exemption clauses. It was heard in the Appellate Division on 20 October 1942, with judgment handed down on 26 November. De Wet CJ, Watermeyer JA, Tindall JA, Centlivres JA and Feetham JA were the judges.

Civil procedure in South Africa is the formal rules and standards that courts follow in that country when adjudicating civil suits. The legal realm is divided broadly into substantive and procedural law. Substantive law is that law which defines the contents of rights and obligations between legal subjects; procedural law regulates how those rights and obligations are enforced. These rules govern how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, and what kind of service of process is required, along with the types of pleadings or statements of case, motions or applications, and orders allowed in civil cases, the timing and manner of depositions and discovery or disclosure, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks are to function.

Supreme Diamonds (Pty) Ltd v Du Bois; Regent Neckwear Manufacturing Co. (Pty) Ltd v Ehrke is an important case in South African law, heard and decided in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Goldstone AJ in 1979, on March 13 and 14 respectively. The case concerned applications for default judgments. The plaintiffs were represented by HS Danilowitz of Feinsteins.

Truter and Another v Deysel is an important case in South African law, with particular resonance in the area of civil procedure and medical malpractice. It is also frequently quoted or invoked for its definition of "cause of action." It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Harms JA, Zulman JA, Navsa JA, Mthiyane JA and Van Heerden JA on 24 February 2006; judgment was delivered on 17 March. Counsel for the appellants was JG Dickerson SC; AC Oosthuizen SC appeared for the respondent. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Cape Provincial Division by Mlonzi AJ.

Kragga Kamma Estates CC and Another v Flanagan is an important case in the South African law of contract, an appeal from a decision in the South Eastern Cape Local Division by Jansen J. It was heard in the Appellate Division on August 19, 1994, with judgement handed down on September 29. The presiding officers were EM Grosskopf JA, Nestadt JA, Kumleben JA, Howie JA and Nicholas AJA. The appellants' attorneys were Tobie Oosthuizen, Port Elizabeth, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys were Jankelowitz, Kerbel & Schärges, Port Elizabeth, and Lovius-Block, Bloemfontein. HJ van der Linde appeared for the appellants; JRG Buchanan SC for the respondent.

East London Model Dairy Co-Operative v Toyk is an important case in South African law. An action for an order cancelling a sale, and for the refund of the purchase price, it was heard in the Eastern Districts Local Division by De Villiers J November 9, 10 and 11, 1954, with judgment handed down on December 9. The plaintiffs' attorneys were RG White, Gillett & McConnachie. The defendant's attorneys were Segal & Pincus. AW Back, QC, appeared for the plaintiff; NC Addleson for the defendant

Wolfaardt v Fedlife Assurance Ltd is an important, precedent-setting case in South African labour law, decided by Odendaal AJ on August 31, 1999. It was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division.

Administrator, Transvaal v Theletsane is an important case in South African law, heard in an Appellate Division comprising Botha JA, Smalberger JA, MT Steyn JA, FH Grosskopf JA and Nicholas AJA. The case was heard on November 5, 1990; judgment was delivered on November 30. The respondents' attorneys were SV Khampepe, Johannesburg, and EG Cooper & Sons, Bloemfontein. The appellants had the State Attorney.

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure and trade marks.

Western Bank Ltd v Pretorius is an important case in South African law, particularly in the area of civil procedure.

Benlou Properties (Pty) Ltd v Vector Graphics (Pty) Ltd is an important case in the South African law of lease.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.