THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA STATEMENT – CASE HEARING IN SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
 
SA Breweries v Van Zyl

Supreme Court of Appeal - 381/04 Hearing date: 1 September 2005
  Judgment date: 29 September 2005
Cession – Deed of Suretyship in respect of money owing – rights under - debt ceded – principle relating to rule ‘huur gaat voor koop’ has no application in law relating to cession – unless Deed of Suretyship provides otherwise, surety only liable in respect of moneys owing at time of cession of principal debt.

Media Summary of Judgment

This media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal

From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

The Supreme Court of Appeal today dismissed an appeal by SA Breweries Ltd against an order of the Pretoria High Court dismissing its claim against Mr Pieter van Zyl for payment of certain moneys allegedly due to it by Ray’s Liquor Store. Mr van Zyl had admittedly stood surety for Ray’s Liquor Store’s indebtedness, not in favour of SA Breweries Ltd but another company with the same name, which had since become dormant.

Ray’s Liquor Store had had a credit facility with the old SA Breweries Ltd, which later sold its business to Lexshell 159 Investment Holdings Ltd. Lexshell changed its name to SA Breweries (Pty) Ltd and later became a public company, assuming the name SA Breweries Ltd. When the erstwhile SA Breweries Ltd sold its business to Lexshell it ceded to Lexshell its claims against its debtors. Lexshell then continued to sell liquor to Ray’s Liquor Store on credit and when the latter could not pay, Lexshell, by then renamed SA Breweries Ltd, looked to the surety, Mr Venter, for payment.

Mr Venter’s argument that he was liable to SA Breweries Ltd only for such amounts as may have been owed by Ray’s Liquor Store to the erstwhile SA Breweries Ltd at the time of the cession, was upheld by the SCA. Mr Venter had never stood surety for the present SA Breweries Ltd. Because there was no proof of the amount owing at the time of the cession, the appeal was dismissed with costs.