Stroebel v Stroebel

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeCillié RP
Judgment Date22 October 1972
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division
Hearing Date11 October 1972
Citation1973 (2) SA 137 (T)

Cillié, R.P.:

In sy dagvaarding het die eiser van die verweerder:

'1.

Betaling van 'n bedrag van R23 710;

2.

F Rente daarop teen 10 persent per jaar vanaf 13 September 1972 tot datum van betaling; en

3.

Koste van die geding'

geëis. Hy het ook die volgende besonderhede verstrek:

Cillié RP

'(i)

Op 12 Oktober 1968 het verweerder 'n skriftelike bewys aan eiser verleen waarkragtens hy erken het 'n bedrag van R11 061 tesame met saamgestelde rente bereken teen 10 persent per jaar vanaf 8 September 1964 tot datum van betaling aan eiser verskuldig te wees. Gemelde bedrag is op aanvraag betaalbaar.

(ii)

Rente ten bedrae van R12 649 het opgeloop tot 12 September 1972.

(iii)

A Ondanks 'n behoorlike eis om betaling weier en/of versuim verweerder om betaling te doen en derhalwe smeek eiser dat vonnis toegestaan word soos hierbo geëis.'

Die dagvaarding is op 14 September 1972 uitgereik en aan die verweerder beteken. Hy het nie binne die tien dae aan hom toegelaat kennis gegee B van sy voorneme om te verdedig nie. Die eiser het derhalwe aansoek gedoen om vonnis by verstek soos in die dagvaarding geëis. By die verhoor is die gemelde bewys ingedien; dit is 'n onderneming soos beweer in die besonderhede tot die dagvaarding.

Met die aanvang van die verrigtinge het mnr. De Jager, wat namens die C eiser verskyn het, daarop gewys dat die eiser slegs 'n bedrag van R11 061 as rente kan verhaal. Daar is in ons reg heelwat gesag vir die stelling dat rente nie die bedrag van die kapitaal self te bowe mag gaan nie; sodra die onbetaalde rente 'n bedrag gelyk aan die van die kapitaal bereik, loop die rente nie meer nie: as die opgeloopte rente of 'n deel daarvan gedelg word, begin dit weer loop, maar net totdat dit nog eens D so hoog as die kapitaal is. (Vgl. Wessels, Law of Contract, 2de uitg., para. 580; Union Government v Jordaan's Executor, 1916 T.P.A. 411; Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen, 1947 (1) SA 576 (T) te bl. 581 en 582, en die gesag aangehaal). Wat die eerste bede betref kan die Hof dus slegs vonnis vir 'n bedrag van R11 061 as kapitaal en 'n bedrag van R11 061 as rente gee.

E Met betrekking tot die tweede bede het mnr. De Jager 'n konsepbevel aan die Hof voorgelê waarin voorsiening gemaak word ingeval daar gedeeltelike betaling is en die bedrag van die rente laer as die bedrag van die kapital daal. Na my mening is so 'n bevel hier onvanpas. Daar moet eers vasgestel word of enige rente...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Paulsen and Another v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...[1997] ZASCA 94): discussed and overruled Starita v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 2010 (3) SA 443 (GSJ): referred to Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T): approved B Taylor v Hollard (1885 – 1888) 2 SAR 78: referred to Thorpe and Others v Trittenwein and Another 2007 (2) SA 172 (SCA) ([2006]......
  • Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 229 (N) Standard Canners and Packers Ltd v Bezuidenhout 1955 (1) SA 601 (T) Stiglingh v French (1892) 9 SC 386 Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T) D Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Lewensassuransiemaatskappy v Rainbow Diamonds (Edms) Bpk en Andere 1982 (4) SA 633 (C) The Brimnes: Tenax Ste......
  • F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1921 CPD 108 Star Asbestos Co (Pty) Ltd v Tollman Hotels and Tourist Industries Ltd and Others 1975 (4) SA 367 CW) Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T) Taylor v Hollard (1886) 2 SAR 62 Union Government v Jordaan 's Executors 1916 TPD 411 Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 ......
  • Nedbank Ltd and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 363 (W): referred to Starita v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 2010 (3) SA 443 (GSJ): dictum in para [12] overruled G Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T): referred Union Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 (1) TPD 411: referred to Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T): ref......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Paulsen and Another v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...[1997] ZASCA 94): discussed and overruled Starita v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 2010 (3) SA 443 (GSJ): referred to Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T): approved B Taylor v Hollard (1885 – 1888) 2 SAR 78: referred to Thorpe and Others v Trittenwein and Another 2007 (2) SA 172 (SCA) ([2006]......
  • Standard Bank of SA Ltd v Oneanate Investments (Pty) Ltd
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 229 (N) Standard Canners and Packers Ltd v Bezuidenhout 1955 (1) SA 601 (T) Stiglingh v French (1892) 9 SC 386 Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T) D Suid-Afrikaanse Nasionale Lewensassuransiemaatskappy v Rainbow Diamonds (Edms) Bpk en Andere 1982 (4) SA 633 (C) The Brimnes: Tenax Ste......
  • F & I Advisors (Edms) Bpk en 'n Ander v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suidelike Afrika Bpk
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1921 CPD 108 Star Asbestos Co (Pty) Ltd v Tollman Hotels and Tourist Industries Ltd and Others 1975 (4) SA 367 CW) Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T) Taylor v Hollard (1886) 2 SAR 62 Union Government v Jordaan 's Executors 1916 TPD 411 Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 ......
  • Nedbank Ltd and Others v National Credit Regulator and Another
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...SA 363 (W): referred to Starita v Absa Bank Ltd and Another 2010 (3) SA 443 (GSJ): dictum in para [12] overruled G Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA 137 (T): referred Union Government v Jordaan's Executor 1916 (1) TPD 411: referred to Van Coppenhagen v Van Coppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T): ref......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • The Statutory in duplum Rule as an Indirect Debt Relief Mechanism
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 d6 Maio d6 2019
    ...Union Government v Jordaan’s Executor 1916 TPD 411; Van Coppenhagen v VanCoppenhagen 1947 (1) SA 576 (T); Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA137 (T); LTA Construction Bpk vAdministrateur, Transvaal supra note 28 at 482 (for a discussion, see JM Otto ‘Die GemeenregtelikeVerbod Teen die Oploop va......
  • The in duplum Rule: Relief for Consumers of Excessively Priced Small Credit Legitimised by the National Credit Act
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , May 2019
    • 25 d6 Maio d6 2019
    ...375 (W) at 303C-E; LTAConstruction Bpk v Administrateur, Transvaal1992(1) SA 473 (A) at 482C.18See, most recently, Stroebel v Stroebel1973 (2) SA 137 (T); Commercial Bank of Zimbabwe Ltd vMM Builders & Suppliers (Pty) Ltd & Others and Three Similar Cases supra note 17; Standard Bank ofSouth......
  • Better Consumer Protection under the Statutory in duplum Rule
    • South Africa
    • Juta South Africa Mercantile Law Journal No. , August 2019
    • 16 d5 Agosto d5 2019
    ...interest (bothcontractual and default interest: our courts apply the limitation to both kindsof interest: see Stroebel v Stroebel 1973 (2) SA137 (T) and Administrasie vanTransvaal v Oosthuizen & ‘n Ander 1990 (3) SA 387 (W)) has accrued to anamount equal to the outstanding capital sum, the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT