South African Land Arrangements CC and Others v Nedbank Limited

Nedbank Limited concluded a loan agreement with South African Land Arrangements CC in July 2009 for R1 250 000 and granted an overdraft facility. A mortgage bond was registered, and the second and third appellants bound themselves as sureties. The first appellant defaulted on its loan and overdraft obligations. Nedbank instituted action in the Magistrates’ Court claiming the outstanding balances. The appellants opposed summary judgment, alleging that the debt was not yet due because the original facility agreement had been superseded by a later credit restructuring agreement, and they relied on a counterclaim based on the alleged breach of that restructuring agreement. The magistrate granted summary judgment. Appeals to the High Court and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Appeal followed.

The application for postponement was dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale. The appeal was dismissed with costs on an attorney-and-client scale, and the summary judgment granted in favour of Nedbank was confirmed.

The case reaffirms strict requirements for opposing summary judgment in South African law, particularly where a defence is based on an alleged counterclaim. It underscores that agreements subject to unfulfilled suspensive conditions have no legal force and cannot ground a defence or counterclaim. The judgment also reinforces appellate principles governing the admission of further evidence and the granting of postponements.