Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Christophorou N.O and Others (48230/2021) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1199 (24 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Anastassis Christopherou N.O. & Others
Citation: [2025] ZAGJHC 945
Date: 24 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for the enforcement of suretyships and the admissibility of banking records as prima facie evidence in instances where original documentation is absent. The judgment provides clarity on the evidentiary weight of internal bank records in legal proceedings, particularly when related documentation is not readily available, which could affect similar future claims involving financial institutions and their sureties.

Cases Cited

1. Bank of Lisbon International Ltd v Venter en ‘n Ander [1990] 2 All SA 14 (A).
2. Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA).
3. Rees and Another v Investec Bank Ltd 2014 (4) SA 220 (SCA).
4. Absa Bank Ltd v Zalvest Twenty (Pty) Ltd and Another 2014 (2) SA 119 (WCC).
5. Smith v Porritt 2008 (6) SA 303 (SCA).
6. Dormell Properties 282 CC v Bamberger [2015] ZASCA 89 (29 May 2015).
7. Rossouw and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd [2010] 6 SA 439 (SCA).
8. Absa Bank Ltd v Tebeila NO and Others [2022] ZAGPJHC 945.

Legislation Cited

1. Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965.
2. National Credit Act 34 of 2005.

Rules of Court Cited

1. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 15(2).
2. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 18(6).
3. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 28.
4. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 32(4).
5. Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 7(1).

HEADNOTE

Summary

This matter concerns an application by The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited for judgment against respondents who acted as sureties for a principal debtor, Peters Land CC. The bank sought to recover a substantial debt while facing challenges pertaining to the absence of certain documents related to the loan agreements due to their age. Despite these challenges, the court ruled that the bank's internal records constituted sufficient evidence of indebtedness, affirming the enforceability of the suretyships.

Key Issues

The court addressed several critical legal issues: the admissibility of missing loan agreement documents; the reliability of bank records as prima facie evidence; the validity and enforceability of surety agreements in the absence of original documentation; and the calculation and applicability of interest rates.

Held

The court held that the missing annexures do not invalidate the principal debtor's obligations, as the bank's system-generated records provide sufficient evidence of the agreements and the debts owed. The sureties' liability was affirmed, and judgment was granted against them while the claim against the deceased surety was postponed.

THE FACTS

The applicant, The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited, sought to enforce suretyships executed by members of the Zervos family to recover approximately R13.7 million owed by Peters Land CC, which had been liquidated. The alleged indebtedness arose from three separate credit facilities established between 2003 and 2004, notably secured by mortgage bonds on identified properties. The sureties included the deceased Mr. Anastasios Panayotis Zervos, and following his death, the application was amended to reflect the executors of his estate.

The litigation revealed that certain documents related to the loan agreements had been misplaced, which led the respondents to contest the validity of the claims based on the assertion that the bank failed to produce the requisite original agreements and annexed terms, particularly concerning interest rates. Despite the missing documents, the bank had provided extensive internal records that evidenced the transactions and payments made.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions centered around the enforceability of the surety agreements despite the absence of original loan documents, the sufficiency of the bank’s internal records as proof of debt, the nature of the objections raised by the respondents, and the methods of calculating interest rates applicable to the loans. The court needed to determine whether these factors constituted reasonable defences against the application for judgment.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the submissions made by both parties, highlighting that the respondents did not refute the existence of the loan facilities or the corresponding mortgage bonds. The major contention was the lack of specific original agreements that recorded the applicable interest rates. The court delivered an extensive exposition on the admissibility of secondary evidence as permissible under the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, emphasizing that internal bank records generated during regular business operations could serve as prima facie proof.

The court’s reasoning cited precedents that affirmed the weight of reconstructed records when originals could not be produced, rendering the claims valid. Despite the absence of certain documentation, the consistent operation of the loan accounts over an extended period established the debt’s existence and the sureties' obligations. Furthermore, the court refuted the respondents’ claims regarding the unreliability of certificates of balance, reinforcing their evidentiary standing unless contradicted by substantial evidence from the respondents.

REMEDY

The court granted judgment against the first, second, and fourth respondents, jointly and severally, for the amounts claimed by the bank, calculated on the basis of the updated certificates of balance reflecting the indebtedness as of July 2025. The court ruled that the application against the third respondent, the deceased's wife, was postponed sine die until an executor could be properly appointed to represent her interests.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case establishes essential legal principles regarding the enforcement of suretyships, particularly when original loan documents are lacking. It affirms that internal bank records can serve as viable evidence of indebtedness when corroborated by historical data during the institution's regular business practices. The judgment also clarified that a debtor's default leads to the automatic enforceability of the surety’s obligations, as long as the transactions remain valid despite procedural arguments raised by sureties. The case further highlights the applicability of issue estoppel in financial matters where the validity of claims had previously been adjudicated.

This comprehensive summary illustrates the significant legal principles and procedural rulings that may influence future litigations involving banking claims and the enforceability of suretyships in South Africa.