Strydom v Engen Petroleum Limited

Soutpansberg Petroleum (Pty) Ltd, a distributor of Engen Petroleum products in Limpopo, was wound up owing Engen approximately R25 million. Ockie Strydom, a director of Soutpansberg, had executed an unlimited deed of suretyship in favour of Engen in December 2004, binding himself as surety and co-principal debtor for the company’s debts. After liquidation, Engen sued Strydom on the suretyship. Strydom resisted liability, contending that he was married in community of property and that his wife had not consented to the suretyship as required by s 15(2)(h) of the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984. Engen could not dispute the absence of consent but argued that the suretyship was executed in the ordinary course of Strydom’s business, rendering consent unnecessary under s 15(6).

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the judgment of the North Gauteng High Court holding Strydom liable under the suretyship was upheld.

The case clarifies the interaction between ss 15(2)(h) and 15(6) of the Matrimonial Property Act and confirms that the consent requirement for suretyships is subject to a significant business-related exception. It establishes that a spouse invoking lack of consent must also prove that the suretyship was not executed in the ordinary course of business. The judgment provides important guidance on the factual enquiry required and on statutory interpretation of provisos in South African law.