SC: Repeated Anticipatory Bail Pleas Abuse Process and Reduce Litigation to a Gamble  ||  Supreme Court: State Officers Cannot Back Litigants Through Affidavits Against the Law  ||  Supreme Court: Accused Deserves Parity With Discharged Co-Accused if Evidence is Not Stronger  ||  SC Allows Euthanasia of Rabid Stray Dogs if Necessary and Protects Officials Acting in Good Faith  ||  Kerala High Court: University Syndicate Cannot Sue Chancellor as Both Form Same Legal Body  ||  Kerala High Court: Unsigned FIS is Admissible if Informant Confirms its Contents in Court  ||  J&K&L High Court: Purchaser’s Structure on Migrant Land Alone Cannot Block Sale Deed Registration  ||  Supreme Court: Bail Remains the Rule and Jail the Exception, Even under the UAPA Law  ||  Supreme Court: Principle of Res Judicata Also Applies Between Stages of the Same Case  ||  Supreme Court: Govt Servant Has No Right to Old Rule Promotion Just Due to Earlier Vacancies    

Cloete Murray N O and Others vs. Humansdorp Co-operative Limited - (30 Dec 2022)

Once a guarantee is valid on the face of it, the contractual obligation of the bank is to pay the nominated beneficiary, if the conditions are met

Civil

In present case, the High Court dismissed the application brought by the liquidators of the Appellant, Cape Concentrate (Pty) Ltd. to set aside, as a payment without value, the payment of monies made to the Respondent from trust account of Pagdens (a firm of attorneys of which the business rescue practitioner was a director). The high court found that, the payment was a demand guarantees made by Cape Concentrate to the Respondent and was a disposition with value.

It was common cause that, a debt was owed to the Respondent by the Trust. While Cape Concentrate was under business rescue, the business rescue practitioner caused monies of Cape Concentrate to be paid into the trust account of Pagdens. Pagdens paid that money from its trust account to the credit of Standard Bank Third Party Trust Administration (TPFA) accounts, in order for Pagdens to cause guarantees to be issued by its utilisation of the Standard Bank’s online TPFA system. The guarantees were to secure the debts of the Trust to the Respondent. The Trust was not able to honour its debt to the Respondent, which made demand in terms of the guarantees. When demand was made, the guarantees were not presented to Standard Bank for payment, but to Pagdens.

It was not disputed that, the bank guarantees were binding on Standard Bank. Once those monies were credited to the Standard Bank TPFA account, they became subject to a pledge and cession in favour of Standard Bank. The fact that the cession was in respect of a property guarantee, as opposed to a demand guarantee, was irrelevant, said the SCA. Once a guarantee is valid on the face of it, the contractual obligation of the bank is to pay the nominated beneficiary if the conditions are met.

When the demand was made by the Respondent for payment under the guarantees, payment of the pledged and ceded monies was made by Pagdens on behalf of Standard Bank, in line with its obligations under the guarantees. The payment was therefore made by Standard Bank in satisfaction of the demand guarantee and not by Cape Concentrate. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : PAYMENT   DEMAND   BANK GUARANTEES  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved