Senwes Ltd v Muller

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Judge: Moseneke AJ
• Judgment Date: 19 October 2001
• Citation: 2002 (4) SA 134 (T)
• Hearing Date: 19 October 2001
• Docket Number: 11946/2001
• Counsel: B H Swart for the applicant. G P Mills for the respondent.

Moseneke AJ:

Before me is an opposed application for an order to perfect five notarial bonds. The specific order sought reads:

'Dat die applikant gemagtig word om die sekuriteit aan hom verleen luidens notariele verbande nrs BN463/94, BN 102398/96, BN57829/98, BN23994/99 en BN42727/2000 te bevestig en te voltooi H deurdat die balju vir die distrik van Fochville, of die applikant se gemagtigde, gemagtig en gelas word om beslag te lê op al die respondent se roerende bates en dit in die sorg en bewaring van die applikant te stel.'

The applicant also seeks an order for costs on an attorney and client basis, which scale of costs the notarial bonds permit. I

The respondent, on whom the papers were duly served, filed a notice of intention to oppose the application, but did not file an answering affidavit. In its stead the respondent delivered a notice in terms of Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) of the Uniform Rules of Court setting out the two questions of law the respondent relies upon. J

Moseneke AJ

Locus standi in judicio

The first question of law is that the applicant has no locus standi in judicio in that in the first two notarial bonds (Nos A BN463/94 and BN 102398/96) of the five notarial bonds relied upon, the bondholder is not the applicant, but Sentraalwes (Koöperatief) Bpk. A cursory look at the bond documents bears out this legal objection as valid ex facie the first two notarial bond documents B attached to the papers. I consequently find that the applicant cannot rely on notarial bonds Nos BN463/94 and BN 102398/96 since the bondholders in each of these bonds is a corporate entity other than the applicant.

Mr Swart, who appeared for the applicant, readily conceded this objection to the locus standi of the C applicant. Mr Swart, however, argued that, even if one disregarded the first two notarial bonds, each of the remaining three bonds (Nos 57829/98, BN23994/99 and BN42727/2000) is a special and a general notarial bond. The applicant, he argued, is therefore entitled to the order sought since the three remaining notarial bonds relate to and cover all movable possessions of the respondent. For that D reason, he submitted, the order sought is still one that should be granted.

Now clause (B) of each of the remaining three bonds reads as follows:

'Die verbandgewer, as sekuriteit vir die stiptelike betaling van die voormelde bedrag van die hoofsom met rente en die bykomende bedrag E en vir die nakoming van die verbandgewer van die terme van hierdie verband verbind die verbandgewer hiermee -

(i)

spesiaal sy roerende bates beskryf in aanhangsel ''A'' hiertoe of sy reg titel en belang daarin welke aanhangsel deur hom parafeer is vir identifikasie doeleindes en

(ii)

in die algemeen sal sy ander roerende bates van welke aard ook al wat hy nou of hierna mag besit of sy reg, titel en belang daarin.' F

Mr Mills, for the respondent, did not make any submissions in his heads of argument or orally on this issue. I agree with Mr Swart that even if one disregards the first two notarial bonds, the remaining three bonds cover all of the respondent's movable possessions or assets, specially and G generally. Whilst the locus standi objection was properly taken in respect of the first two bonds, it does not dispose of the matter. All reference from now on, to notarial bonds will be limited to the three bonds upon which the applicant, in my view, may properly rely for the relief set out in the notice of motion. H

Legal validity of the notarial bonds

The second legal question raised by the respondent is that clauses 13 and 14 of each bond lacks legal validity and is thus unenforceable because its provisions authorise 'parate eksekusie' or 'self help'. It is indeed this objection or rather its legal consequences, which has engaged the attention of both counsel and is I the central preoccupation of this judgment.

I would first briefly state the facts set out in the supporting affidavit. It will be remembered that those facts are not contested and therefore are common cause for purposes of this application. J

Moseneke AJ

1.

The respondent is a farmer in the district of Fochville in A the North West Province. The respondent has taken as loans various amounts from the applicant. As at 1 March 2001 he was indebted to the applicant in the total amount of R4 047 183,07. This amount is subject to additional interest calculated from 1 March 2001.

2.

In order to secure his indebtedness to the applicant, the respondent registered three notarial bonds in favour of the B applicant. Each of the notarial bonds has various provisions, but important for purposes of this judgment are clauses 13 and 14 to which I will revert in a moment.

3.

The respondent has remained in default in regard to his obligations to the applicant and despite demand has failed to effect C payment as agreed and consequently the total amount outstanding is now due and payable.

4.

As the bonds authorise, a certificate signed by the credit controller of the applicant, evidencing the balance outstanding, has D been attached to the papers.

5.

On 25 January 2001 the applicant made an attempt to take possession of the hypothecated movables by sending one of its officials to deliver to the respondent a letter authorising the applicant to take possession of the movables. The respondent refused to allow the applicant to remove any of the specified movables which are the E subject of the special notarial bonds or any of those which are the subject of the general notarial bond.

6.

Subsequent thereto the applicant requested its sworn valuator to approach the respondent with a view to placing a value on or preparing a valuation of all the movables. The respondent refused F to allow the applicant's valuator to value the movable property.

7.

The applicant states that it has no option but to approach this Court in order to enforce its rights in terms of the notarial bonds.

Clause 13 of the three notarial bonds, which are identical in wording, reads as follows:

'13.

Indien die verbandgewer in gebreke sou bly: G

13.1

om aan die verbandnemer enige bedrag te betaal nadat dit verskuldig en opeisbaar geraak het, of nadat dit opgevra is; of

13.2

om enige bepaling of voorwaarde hiervan stiptelik na te kom; of

13.3

indien die verbandnemer sou vermoed dat sy sekuriteit of belange gevaar loop om benadeel te word deur enige optrede of nalate H van die verbandgewer of sy werknemers; of

13.4

indien enige skuldeiser van die verbandgewer teen hom sou begin optree met stappe vir sekwestrasie van sy boedel of ter invordering van skuld of die...