Webb v Coetzee

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Clayden J
• Judgment Date: 21 February 1951
• Citation: 1951 (2) SA 176 (W)
• Hearing Date: 20 February 1951
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

F Clayden J:

This is an action for provisional sentence on a cheque for £525 The summons alleged that the plaintiff is the 'legal holder of the said cheque and who duly presented the said cheque for payment at the said bank'

G No notarial certificate of presentment for payment has been handed in; nor is there an affidavit to prove the allegation in the summons that the cheque was duly presented for payment.

The argument on behalf of the plaintiff is that since the defendant has not appeared to oppose provisional sentence proof of the allegation in H the summons of presentment is unnecessary. It is not, I think, necessary to examine all the cases in this regard. In Union Bank of South Africa Ltd v Woolf, 1939 W.L.D. 222 at p. 226, SCHREINER, J., says:

'Although affidavits have occasionally been accepted the established practice is to require a notarial certificate.'

In Brazil v Henderson and Henderson, 1946 W.L.D. 270 at p. 274, RAMSBOTTOM, J., says:

'. . . according to the practice of the Court a notarial certificate of due presentment would have to be put in'.

Clayden J

In Johannesburg Suburban Properties (Pty.) Ltd v Port and Others, 1950 (2) SA 686 (W), RAMSBOTTOM, J., says:

'The summons alleges that the note was duly presented for payment but no notarial certificate of presentment has been produced...