CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

SA Bank of Athens Limited v May van Zyl

CitationCase No 431/03 (SCA, unreported judgment delivered 21 February 2005)
JurisdictionZA
Area of Law
Constitutional LawContract Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Civil Procedure
Banking and Security Law

Facts of the Case

The respondent (plaintiff) was a widow who was allegedly inveigled by an insurance representative (Joubert) into investing in a trust in which Joubert's family had interests. She was made a trustee without her knowledge. The appellant bank instituted action against her in the magistrate's court for amounts allegedly owing by the trust on its cheque account, citing her both as trustee and in her personal capacity based on a deed of suretyship. She resisted summary judgment, claiming she signed documents without reading or understanding them and had no knowledge of signing a suretyship. While the opposed summary judgment application was pending, the bank called up and retained proceeds of four investment policies held by the respondent with Sanlam (totaling R206,907.00) in November and December 1998. The bank acted in terms of parate executie clauses in deeds of cession whereby the respondent had allegedly ceded the policies as security for the trust's debt. The respondent instituted action claiming the bank's actions were unlawful because parate executie clauses were unconstitutional under section 34 of the Constitution.

Legal Issues

  • Whether parate executie clauses are per se unconstitutional and invalid under section 34 of the Constitution
  • Whether the summary judgment granted in favor of the respondent was sustainable on the facts and legal principles
  • Whether the particular parate executie clauses in the cession agreements were valid
  • Whether the bank's conduct in executing the parate executie clauses was lawful
  • The proper application of the doctrine established in Findevco (Pty) Ltd v Faceformat SA (Pty) Ltd

Judicial Outcome

The appeal succeeded. The order of the court a quo was set aside. The following order was substituted: (1) The application for summary judgment is refused; (2) The defendant is granted leave to defend; (3) The costs of the application for summary judgment are to be costs in the action. No order was made as to costs of the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

Parate executie clauses are not per se unconstitutional or in conflict with section 34 of the Constitution. Such clauses will only be invalid if they are so far-reaching as to be contrary to public policy. The common law does not limit the right of access to courts where parate executie is exercised by a creditor lawfully in possession of security, as the debtor may seek court protection against prejudicial conduct by the creditor. Summary judgment should not be granted where the relevant facts and circumstances have not been fully canvassed before the court, particularly where the failure to present a full case was due to a misunderstanding of the law shared by both parties and the court, apparently occasioned by acceptance of a High Court judgment subsequently held by the Supreme Court of Appeal to be incorrect.

Obiter Dicta

Erasmus AJA expressed reluctance to decide whether the action was properly based on the actio ad exhibendum, as this point was raised for the first time during oral argument in the SCA and was not fully canvassed. The Court noted that an application to strike certain documents from the record had been brought after judgment was reserved, but indicated this application need not delay judgment as the documents had no effect on the decision. The Court noted that the severe censure by the court a quo of the bank's conduct may well prove to be justified, but that this required proper consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. Regarding public policy challenges to contracts, the Court stated (citing authorities in Sasfin v Beukes) that contractual provisions will only be found contrary to public policy when that is their clear effect, requiring a probability that unconscionable, immoral or illegal conduct will result from implementation according to their tenor.

Legal Significance

This case is significant for clarifying the constitutional validity of parate executie in South African law. It confirms that parate executie clauses are not per se unconstitutional or offensive to public policy, expressly rejecting the approach in Findevco. The judgment affirms that section 34 of the Constitution (right to access to courts) does not prohibit parate executie where the creditor is lawfully in possession of the security and the debtor can seek court protection if the creditor acts prejudicially. The case establishes important principles regarding summary judgment procedure: that summary judgment should not be granted where facts have not been fully canvassed, particularly where both parties and the court operated under a mistaken view of the law based on a High Court judgment subsequently overturned by the SCA. It demonstrates the court's willingness to exercise discretion on costs where both parties share blame for the misdirection of proceedings. The case is also important for its discussion of when contractual provisions will be held contrary to public policy, adopting a test requiring probability that unconscionable, immoral or illegal conduct will result from implementation of the provisions.

Case relationship graph

Case Network

Explore 69 related cases • Click to navigate

Current Case
Related Case

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Beukes1989 (1) SA 1 (A)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that parate execution is acceptable provided the terms are not unconscionable or incompatible with public policy, and also cited…

Cited By 133 Cases

  • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that apparently wide discretion must be narrowed in the light of the purpose of the legislation and that courts must have due regard to…

  • ABSA Bank Ltd v Maxwell Howard Malihambe CengimboCase No: 896/2020 (Eastern Cape Division, Mthatha)
    Cites

    The court cites this case in support of the principle that amendments should generally be allowed unless there is good cause for not allowing an amendment.

  • Action SA v The Electoral Commission of South Africa(006/2021/) [2022] ZAEC 2 (18 January 2022)
    Applies

    Court applies the approach to reviewing the exercise of wide ministerial or administrative discretion.

  • Afribusiness NPC v The Minister of Finance(1050/2019) [2020] ZASCA 140 (2 November 2020)
    Applies

    Court applied the principle that the exercise of public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality; acting ultra vires is acting…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

  • African Climate Alliance and Others v The Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy and OthersCase No. 56907/2021, [2024] ZAGPPHC (4 December 2024)
    Cites

    Cited in support of the court's power to review ministerial conduct under section 1(c) read with section 172 of the Constitution.

  • AfriForum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and Others(778/24) [2026] ZASCA 28 (13 March 2026)
    Cites

    Cited as the case where the Biowatch principle was first established regarding costs in constitutional litigation between the government and private parties.

  • Albutt v Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others(CCT 54/09) [2010] ZACC 4
    Cites

    Cited to support the proposition that the exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • Andrew Lionel Phillips v South African Reserve Bank[2012] ZASCA 38 (29 March 2012)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that an unsuccessful litigant in constitutional proceedings against the State ought not to be ordered to pay costs in order to avoid…

  • Association of Mineworkers and Construction Union and Others v Chamber of Mines of South Africa and Others[2017] ZACC 3
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of legality requiring all exercises of public power to be rational and not arbitrary.

  • Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Thwala and Others(1008/2023) [2025] ZASCA 105 (18 July 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that in litigation between private parties where constitutional issues are raised, the awarding of costs is a matter within the…

  • Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees for the time being of the Oregon Trust and Others[2020] ZACC 13
    Cites

    Cited for the rule of law requirement that the law be clear and ascertainable.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others
    Cites

    Cited at para 32 for the proposition that delegation is a practical necessity in modern government.

  • Bengwenyama Minerals (Pty) Ltd and Others v Genorah Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others(CCT 39/10) [2010] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that delegation is often necessary for the performance of administrative functions.

  • Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others[2009] ZACC 11
    Applies

    Applied for the doctrine of vagueness, which requires reasonable certainty in laws so that individuals may regulate their conduct, and not perfect lucidity.

  • Brümmer v Minister for Social Development and Others(CCT 25/09) [2009] ZACC 21
    Cites

    The Court cites Affordable Medicines Trust for the proposition that conflicting provisions may infringe the rule of law.

  • Camps Bay Ratepayers' and Residents' Association and Another v Gerda Yvonne Ada Harrison and Another(CCT 18/10) [2010] ZACC 19
    Cites

    Court cites this judgment for the rule that unsuccessful parties in constitutional matters are not ordinarily ordered to pay costs.

  • Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces v Malema(535/2015) [2016] ZASCA 69 (20 May 2016)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that testing the exercise of public power against legality and rationality falls within the judiciary's constitutional province.

  • City Capital SA Property Holdings Limited v Chavonnes Badenhorst St Clair Cooper NO(85/2017) [2017] ZASCA 177 (1 December 2017)
    Cites

    Cited for the doctrine of vagueness founded on the rule of law, requiring laws to be written with reasonable certainty.

  • City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Cable City (Pty) Ltd(232/08) [2009] ZASCA 87 (10 September 2009)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that a finding that a minister acted ultra vires is in effect a finding that conduct is inconsistent with the Constitution and…

  • Cornelius Johannes Alexander Lourens v Premier of the Free State Province & another(566/2016) [2017] ZASCA 60 (25 May 2017)
    Cites

    Court cites the general rule that in constitutional litigation, if government loses it should pay costs, and if government wins, each party should bear its own…

  • Deez Realtors CC t/a Firzt Realty Company v South African Securitisation Program (Pty) Limited(175/2016) [2016] ZASCA 194 (2 December 2016)
    Applies

    Applied for the general approach to amendments, namely that amendments will always be allowed unless mala fide or unless the amendment will cause an injustice…

  • Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others(CCT 122/11) [2012] ZACC 24
    Applies

    Applied in the rationality analysis and for the principle that rationality review respects the separation of powers and requires a rational relationship…

  • Democratic Alliance v The Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions(288/11) [2012] ZASCA 15 (20 March 2012)
    Follows

    Applied for the principle that the exercise of public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality.

  • Dines Chandra Manilal Gihwala and Others v Grancy Property Ltd and Others(20760/2014) [2016] ZASCA 35 (24 March 2016)
    Cites

    Court cites Ngcobo J's explanation that regulation of vocational activity for the protection of the public is expected and welcomed if in the public interest…

  • Dr AB Xuma Local Municipality v Lonwabo Delihlazo and OthersCase No: 3883/2024 (ECHC)
    Cites

    Cited in the context of lawfulness depending on the terms of the empowering statute and the exercise of public power being unlawful and invalid if not…

  • Duwayne Esau and Others v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others(611/2020) [2021] ZASCA 9 (28 January 2021)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the right to practice one's trade, profession and occupation is closely linked to the right to work and to human dignity.

  • East Rand Member District of Chartered Accountants and Another v Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors and Others(113/2022) [2023] ZASCA 81 (31 May 2023)
    Cites

    Cited alongside Fedsure for the principle that bodies may not exercise powers not conferred by their enabling legislation.

  • Economic Freedom Fighters and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another[2020] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the doctrine of vagueness requires reasonable certainty in laws so that those bound by them can regulate their conduct.

  • Electronic Media Network Limited and Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others[2017] ZACC 17
    Applies

    The Court applies the rational basis test involving judicial restraint and respecting the wide latitude of the legislature within the limits of the…

  • Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Limited v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Limited(CCT 105/10) [2011] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited for discussion of ubuntu as a constitutional value.

  • Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions(CCT 95/10) [2011] ZACC 26
    Cites

    Cited to support the decision to order each party to pay its own costs in this Court where a constitutional issue of considerable import was raised.

  • Foxlake Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Foxway Developments (Pty) Ltd v Ultimate Raft Foundation Design Solutions CC t/a Ultimate Raft Design(144/15) [2016] ZASCA 54 (01 April 2016)
    Applies

    Court applies the governing principles for the granting or refusal of an amendment, namely that amendments will be allowed unless made in bad faith or causing…

  • Frank Mhlongo and Others v Tryphina Mokoena N O and Others(723/20) [2022] ZASCA 78
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that acting beyond granted powers is invalid.

  • General Council of the Bar v Mansingh(417/2012) [2013] ZASCA 9 (15 March 2013)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the guarantee of the right to choose a trade, occupation or profession embraces not only the choice of profession but also by…

  • Helen Suzman Foundation v The Speaker of the National Assembly and Others(484/2021) [2023] ZASCA 6
    Cites

    Cited to support the Biowatch principle and the qualification that frivolous or vexatious litigation may attract a costs order.

  • Hendrick Pieter Le Roux and Others v Louis Dey(CCT 45/10) [2011] ZACC 4
    Considers

    Court considers the strong argument that assessment of damages in defamation cases raises constitutional matter, particularly regarding quantum.

  • Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town[2017] ZACC 10
    Applies

    Applied for the principles that costs awards are discretionary and must be exercised judicially having regard to all relevant circumstances, and that there may…

  • HTF Developers (Pty) Ltd v The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism(337/06) [2007] ZASCA 37
    Applies

    The court applies the doctrine of vagueness as expounded by Ngcobo J in this case, which is founded on the rule of law and requires laws to be written in a…

  • Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Limited v Kwazulu-Natal Law Society and Others[2019] ZACC 47
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the rule of law requires that the law be clear and ascertainable.

  • Independent Outdoor Media (Pty) Ltd and Others v The City of Cape Town
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that laws should be written in a clear and accessible manner.

  • In re: Prosecutor-General of Zimbabwe on his Constitutional Independence and Protection from Direction and ControlJudgment No. CCZ 13/2017, Const. Application No. CCZ 8/15
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that the doctrine of legality, which is an incident of the rule of law, is one of the constitutional controls through which the…

  • Jack Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Minister of Safety and Security(CCT 124/12) [2013] ZACC 29
    Cites

    Cited for the principle against discouraging the pursuit of constitutional claims.

  • Jan van Rensburg & Another v Dr Adeo Cloete & AnotherCase No: 8270/09 (Eastern Circuit Local Division) - Unreported judgment delivered 28 January 2010
    Follows

    The court follows the principle that the purpose of limiting the right to dignity by immunity for defamatory statements is to advance democracy through open…

  • JDJ Properties CC and Another v Umngeni Local Municipality and Another(873/11) [2012] ZASCA 186 (29 November 2012)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle of review on grounds of legality and rationality.

  • J E Mahlangu and Another v Minister of Police[2021] ZACC 10
    Applies

    Affordable Medicines Trust is cited for the basic component of the rule of law and the principle of legality constraining state functionaries.

  • Joseph and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others(CCT 43/09) [2009] ZACC 30
    Cites

    Cited for this Court's approach to costs in matters between a private litigant and an organ of state.

  • Justice Alliance of South Africa v President of the Republic of South Africa; Freedom Under Law v President of the Republic of South Africa; Centre for Applied Legal Studies v President of the Republic of South Africa(CCT 53/11) [2011] ZACC 23
    Cites

    Cited on the principle that in delegation Parliament has not furnished adequate guidelines for the exercise of discretion.

  • Kgosi Nyalala Molefe John Pilane & Others v Premier of the North West Province & Others(035/2024) [2025] ZASCA 126 (9 September 2025)
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that legality and the rule of law are foundational to a just and stable society.

  • Kini Bay Village Association v The Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality(434/07) [2008] ZASCA 66 (29 May 2008)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that there is no inflexible rule against costs orders in constitutional litigation and the ultimate goal is to do that which is just.

  • Kunene and Others v Minister of Police(260/2020) [2021] ZASCA 76 (10 June 2021)
    Applies

    Applied for the principle that the principle of legality entails that the legislature and executive may exercise no power beyond that conferred upon them by…

  • Landev (Pty) Ltd v Black Eagle Project, RoodekransCase No: 6085/07 (South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg)
    Cites

    Cited for the general rule that unsuccessful parties in constitutional litigation against the State ought not to be ordered to pay costs.

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v Minister for Transport and Another(CCT 38/10) [2010] ZACC 25
    Cites

    Cited for the requirement that the legislature may not act capriciously or arbitrarily when making laws.

  • Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others[2018] ZACC 51
    Applies

    Applied to establish that the exercise of public power must comply with the Constitution and the doctrine of legality, which entails that the President may…

  • Lawyers for Human Rights v Rules Board for Courts of Law and Minister of Justice and Constitutional DevelopmentThe citation is not provided in the judgment text
    Cites

    Cited for the principle that impermissibly vague provisions violate constitutional standards because neither administrator nor applicant can know what…

  • Liberal Democrats and Others v President of the Republic of Zimbabwe E.D. Mnangagwa N.O. and OthersCCZ 7/18 (Constitutional Application No. CCZ 10/18)
    Follows

    Court follows the South African Constitutional Court authority on the principle that award of costs in constitutional litigation is discretionary and that…

  • Loggenberg N O & others v Maree(286/2017) [2018] ZASCA 24 (23 March 2018)
    Cites

    Cited for the proposition that the doctrine of vagueness, based on the rule of law, requires laws to be written in a clear manner with reasonable certainty but…

  • Maccsand (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town(CCT 103/11) [2012] ZACC 7
    Cites

    Cited to support the principle that private parties are not ordered to pay costs unless they raise frivolous appeals or behave in a manner deserving censure.

  • Maccsand (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others
    Applies

    The Court applied this case to support its finding that Maccsand should be exempted from costs because it did not raise a frivolous appeal nor behave in a…

  • Macsteel Tube and Pipe, a division of Macsteel Service Centres SA (Pty) Ltd v Vowles Properties (Pty) Ltd(680/2020) [2021] ZASCA 178 (17 December 2021)
    Cites

    Court cites Affordable Medicines Trust for the principle that applications for amendment of pleadings are regulated by a wide and generous discretion which…

  • Magnificent Mile Trading 30 (Pty) Limited v Charmaine Celliers N.O. and Others[2019] ZACC 36
    Applies

    Applied for the principles of the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the doctrine of legality as constitutional controls on the exercise of…

  • Explore More Cases

    More Constitutional Law cases

    • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
    • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The StateSC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
    • Aaron Musiteyi v The StateHMT 2-21, B 09/21
    • Abahlali baseMjondolo Movement SA and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others(CCT 12/09) [2009] ZACC 31
    • AB and Another v Minister of Social Development[2016] ZACC 43
    • AB and Another v Pridwin Preparatory School and Others[2020] ZACC 12

    More South Africa cases

    • 3M South Africa (Pty) Ltd v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service(272/09) [2010] ZASCA 20 (23 March 2010)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
    • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
    • 4-Tune Investments (Pty) Ltd v Kingsgate Body CorporateCSOS 4565/WC/22 (Adjudication Order, 29 November 2023)
    • 68 Wolmarans Street Johannesburg (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tufh Limited(1263/2022) [2024] ZASCA 48 (15 April 2024)
    • 9 on Rydal Vale Court Body Corporate v Pan African Holdings Pty LtdCSOS-4563/KZN/23 (Adjudication Order, 8 November 2023)
    • AAA Investments (Proprietary) Limited v The Micro Finance Regulatory Council and Another
    2006 (11) BCLR 1255 (CC) (also reported as CCT 51/05)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97