SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 146511/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE 13 APRIL 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED
(Reg. No.: 1929/001225/06)
And
DAVID MOGASHOA
(ID.: 7[...])
Heard on: 25 February 2026
Applicant
Respondent
2
Delivered on: 13 April 2026
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is electronically circulated to the parties/their legal representatives by
e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date
for hand-down is deemed to be 13 April 2026.
JUDGMENT
KEKANA AJ
[1] This is an application for a monetary judgment against the Respondent ,
whereby the Respondent is alleged to have stood surety for the obligations of the
principal debtor, namely Perfect Drive Rand Airport (Pty) Ltd . The Respondent
opposes the application and denies the existence of any suretyship between the
Applicant and the Respondent.
Introduction and Background
[2] The principal debtor entered into various credit agreements with the Applicant
and later failed to make payment of the balances, resulting in the Applicant
cancelling the agreements. The Applicant claims to have entered into an overdraft
facility agreement with the principal debtor on or about 06 February 2024, which has
a current balance of R I 912 825,75 (One million nine hundred and twelve thousand
eight hundred and t wenty-five rands seventy-five cents). On the same day, t here
was a loan agreement with the principal debtor , which has a current balance of R 2
075 870,75 (Two million and seventy-five thousand eight hundred and seventy rands
seventy-five cents). On 29 June 2022, there was another loan agreement with the
principal debtor, which has a current balance of R 516 232, 76 (Five hundred and
sixteen thousand two hundred and thirty-two rands seventy -six cents). On 26
October 2021, the Respondent entered into a surety agreement with the Applicant.
3
The Respondent signed as surety for Perfect Drive Rand Airport (Pty) Ltd . The
Applicant claims that it is entitled to recover the monies from the surety as co -
principal debtor.
Submissions by parties
[3] The Applicant makes several submissions that:
3.1 no genuine or bona fide dispute exists in that the Respondents only
provide a bare denial and fail to take this Court into confidence by
disclosing a defence or answer to any of the averments;
3.2 a bare denial is generally not sufficient to create a dispute of fact in
application proceedings;
3.3 in a motion court, the Respondent’s answering affidavit must seriously
and unambiguously address the facts in the founding affidavit.
[4] The Respondent contends that;
4.1 there was no surety agreement entered into between himself and the
Applicant to marry the debts claimed by the Applicant;
4.2 denies being indebted to the Applicant for any amount of R I 912 825,75;
4.3 denies being indebted to the Applicant for any amount of R 2 075 870,75;
4.4 denies being indebted to the Applicant for any amount of R 516 232, 76.
Legal principle and analysis.
[5] It is trite that a real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact can only exist
where the Court is satisfied that the party who purports to raise the dispute has
seriously and unambiguously addressed the facts said to be disputed in his or her
affidavit. The respondents do not meet this threshold. It is trite that motion
proceedings, unless concerned with interim relief, are all about the resolution of legal
issues based on common cause facts. Unless the circumstances are special, they
4
cannot be used to resolve factual issues because they are not designed to determine
probabilities.1
[6] It is well established that if the material facts are in dispute and there is no
request for the hearing of oral evidence, a final order will only be granted on notice of
motion if the facts as stated by the respondent , together with the facts alleged by the
applicant that are admitted by the respondent, justify such an order. 2 Unless, of
course, the court is satisfied that the respondent’s version consists of bald or
uncreditworthy denials, raises fictitious disputes of fact, is so far -fetched or so clearly
untenable or so palpably implausible as to warrant its rejection merely on the
papers.3
[7] The Applicant was able to prove the following:
7.1 The overdraft facility agreement, it addendum and the certificate of
balance thereto;
7.2 a first loan agreement, its addendum and the certificate of balance
thereto;
7.3 a second loan agreement, its addendum and the certificate of balance
thereto;
7.4 a statement of accounts for all accounts, the overdraft facility and the two
loans;
7.4 a surety agreement signed by the Respondent;
7.5 letters of demand in relation to the outstanding amount on the loans;
7.5 letter of demand in relation to the outstanding amount on the overdraft
facility.
1 Cooper and Another NNO v Curro Heights Properties (Pty) Ltd 2023 (5) SA 402 (SCA) at para 13.
2 Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd 1957 (4) SA 234 (C) at 235E.
3 Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd [1984] ZASCA 51; 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at
635C.
5
[8] For the Respondent to simply deny the existence of a surety agreement which
he signed on 9 October 2018 cannot be bona fide while the surety agreement is in
existence. Clause 12 of the deed of surety signed by the Respondent provides that:
Additional security- “This suretyship is in addition to and without prejudice to
any other securities or suretyships now held or hereafter to be held from or on
behalf of the Debtor and this suretyship shall remain in force despite the death
or legal disability of myself or one or more of us until receipt by FRB’s
branches or divisions at which the Debtor in indebted of notice in writing
terminating same advising the Debtor of termination of his suretyship.”
[9] There has been no evidence adduced by the Respondent to prove termination
of the surety agreement.
[10] The crisp issue is whether there are fundamental disputes of fact which
cannot be resolved on the papers. A bare denial raised by the Respondent does not
offer any assistance in this regard. The Respondent, in its affidavit, fails to raise any
issues that trigger a dispute warranting a trial. The Respondent’s contention that the
certificate of balance only shows the balance but not the breach cannot be
sustained; nowhere does the Respondent make any averments that it paid the whole
or part of the claimed amount. It is only then that a possibility of a dispute could
arise. Absent any such averments on the part of the Respondent, no dispute of fact
arises.
[11] The contention by the Respondent that a certificate of balance only shows the
outstanding amount but not a breach becomes purely cosmetic once the agreements
are cancelled. The certificate of balance will be sufficient to prove what is
outstanding after the agreements have been cancelled.
Conclusion
[12] The facts of this matter are such that the court is satisfied that the
Respondent’s version consists of uncreditworthy denials and is clearly untenable.
Respondent’s version consists of uncreditworthy denials and is clearly untenable.
There is , quite simply, no defence to the Applicant’s claim on the papers. The
Respondents place absolutely no facts before the Court which could be considered a
dispute, or which could raise a dispute or triable issue. On the contrary, the Applicant
6
has shown that the amounts due are owing to them . Accordingly, the only
appropriate relief to be granted is that which is prayed for in the notice of motion,
with costs.
[13] I accordingly grant the following order:
1. The Respondent to pay an amount of R I 912 825,75 (One million nine
hundred and twelve thousand eight hundred and twenty-five rands
seventy-five cents) to the Applicant.
2. The Respondent to pay an amount of R2 075 870,75 (Two million and
seventy-five thousand eight hundred and seventy rands seventy-five
cents) to the Applicant.
3. The Respondent to pay an amount of R 516 232, 76 (Five hundred and
sixteen thousand two hundred and thirty-two rands seventy-six cents
4. The Respondent to pay the above-stated amounts with interest due,
owing and payable to the Applicant in terms of the deed of surety for
the obligations of the principal debtor
5. The Respondent to pay the costs of this application on a party and
party scale B.
_____________________
ND KEKANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT