JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J
1. Nedbank launched proceedings seeking judgment against the first
respondent, for repayment of a loan, and against the other respondents,
as sureties.
2. What is before me now is the claim against the third respondent surety.
3. The third respondent has delivered a third party notice to a third party.
The third respondent seeks an indemnity in the event of a finding
against the third respondent.
4. The answering affidavit by the third respondent alleges that he was
entitled to be released by the bank from his suretyship. He points to two
emails. In the first, he asked to be released. In the other, the reply, a
bank employee wrote “ No problem “.
5. The answering affidavit gives context to this exchange of emails. The
replying affidavit suggests that the exchange of emails relates to a
different suretyship.
6. I can’t find, on paper, either that the bank waived its rights or that the
email meant something other than what it appears, literally, to say.
7. It would be unwise to attempt to decide this case without pleadings,
discovery and a trial. Lack of authority may need to be pleaded.
ORDER.
1. The notice of motion stands as a simple summons.
2. The notice to oppose stands as a notice of intention to defend.
3. The applicant is to deliver a declaration by 31 March 2026.
4. Thereafter, the matter proceeds as an action.
josh@rademeyer.co.za