Case Law[2025] ZAWCHC 283South Africa
Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
Headnotes
in trust by the respondent’s attorneys as a stakeholder.
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAWCHC 283
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
Baba v Nedbank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (6535.2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 283 (11 July 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2025_283.html
sino date 11 July 2025
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE
DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: 6535/2024
In the matter between
MOUSSA
BABA
APPLICANT
AND
NEDBANK
LIMITED
RESPONDENT
Heard:
11 June 2025
Delivered:
11 July 2025
JUDGMENT ON
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
THULARE J
ORDER
(a)
The application for leave to appeal is
dismissed.
(b)
The applicant to pay the costs on attorney
and client scale as envisaged in the suretyship agreement.
[1] This is an opposed
application for leave to appeal against the whole judgment by an
Acting Justice whose term had ended at the
time of the service of the
application. The sole ground for leave to appeal was that the court
erred in finding that the principal
debt was not extinguished by the
payment of the purchase price of the immovable property to the
attorneys of the respondent and
therefore that the applicant’s
liability as surety has not been discharged.
[2] Bestinver Company
South Africa (Pty) Ltd (Bestinver) purchased property in Hyde Park
(the property) and the respondent loaned
Bestinver R15 million to
finance the sale. The applicant signed as surety and co-principal
debtor to the Bestinver loan. The surety
was limited to R15 million
plus interests and costs on attorney and client scale. From about
November 2020 Bestinver failed to
pay the monthly instalments to the
respondent thereby breaching the agreement and entitling the
respondent to claim payment of
the balance outstanding together with
interests and costs. Bestinver’s indebtedness to the respondent
exceeded R16 million.
The respondent’s case was that as surety
and co-principal debtor, the applicant was jointly and severally
liable for the
debt owed by Bestinver, subject only to the limit
stipulated in the deed of suretyship. It was further the respondent’s
case
that it was entitled to judgment against the applicant
regardless of the litigation between the applicant’s father and
Bestinver’s
liquidators which concerned an amount of R14
million which was held in trust by the respondent’s attorneys
as a stakeholder.
[3] The applicant sought
the dismissal of the respondent’s claim or alternatively the
stay of the application pending the
outcome of an application lodged
by his father and another company, Elite Vision, against the
liquidators of Bestinver, which was
filed in the Gauteng High Court.
According to the applicant, his father and Elite Vision sought a
declarator confirming that his
family, and not Bestinver, were the
true intended recipients of the R14 million advanced by Elite
Vision. Elite Vision was
a company wholly owned by the Baba
family. According to the applicant, Enderby Finance Ltd (Enderby), a
company incorporated in
the British Virgin Islands provided the Baba
family with a short-term loan of R15 million and it was agreed that
the funds would
be deposited into Elite Vision, and that the Baba’s
were to utilize the funds for the purchase price of the property. A
now
deceased liquidator of Bestinver had agreed to Elite Vision’s
offer to purchase the property and to that end the full purchase
price of R14 million was paid to the respondent’s attorney’s
trust account in addition to transfer duty and other related
costs
for the transfer. The father delayed with the provision of FICA
documents and the liquidators raised a query regarding the
nature and
purpose of the Elite Vision payment into Bestinver. The liquidators
withdrew from the sale. The disputed sale involving
Elite Vision is
the foundation of the litigation in Gauteng.
[4] The court granted the
judgment sought to be appealed against in favour of the respondent
against the applicant for payment of
R15 million together with
interest and costs on attorney and client scale. I am not persuaded
that the appeal would have any reasonable
prospects of success or
that there was some other compelling reason why the appeal should be
heard [section 17(1)(a0 of the Superior
Courts Act, 2013 (Act No. 10
of 2013) (the SUCA)]. The contract of suretyship was accessory to the
contractual relationship between
the creditor and the principal
debtor as well as the principal debtor’s obligations under it
[
Van Zyl v Auto Commodities (Pty) Ltd
(279/2020)
[2021] ZASCA
67
(3 June 2021) para 11]. The obligations of the surety are the same
as that of the principal debtor [
Kilroe-Daley v Barclays National
Bank Ltd
[1984] ZASCA 90
;
1984 (4) SA 609
(a) at 622H-623H;
Neon and Cold
Cathode Illuminations (Pty) Ltd v Ephron
1978 (1) SA 463
(A). A
creditor’s claim against a surety and co-principal debtor is
contingent on the principal debtor’s default [
Trans-Drakensberg
Bank Ltd v The Master and Others
1962 (4) SA 417
(N) at 422. The
principal debtor’s inability to pay, arising out of insolvency
and liquidation is a contingency for which
a creditor takes a surety
[CF Forsyth & JT Pretorius
Caney’s The Law of Suretyship
in South Africa
6ed (2010) 119 with reference to Voet 46.1.39].
The fact that R14 million may possibly be recovered and may be
available did not
help the applicant. The respondent was entitled to
claim from the respondent the moment the debt became due
[
Consolidated Textile Mills Ltd v Weiniger
1961 (3) SA 335
(O)
at 338A-D]. For these reasons the order was made.
DM
THULARE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Nedbank Limited v Baba (6535/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 176 (25 April 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 176High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)99% similar
Shabudin v Nedbank Limited and Others (18516/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 49 (18 February 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 49High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
Nedbank Limited v Davids (19891/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 406 (26 August 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 406High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
Nedbank Limited v Varoyi (9102/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 241 (3 June 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 241High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
Nedbank Limited v DC Trustees (Reasons) (4221/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 337 (28 October 2024)
[2024] ZAWCHC 337High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar