Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:49:05.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protection of the surety under Zimbabwean law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Lovemore Madhuku
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The availability of credit facilities to both companies and individuals wishing to do business is probably one of the most important facets of the modern world. It is needless to emphasize that the need to create an enabling environment conducive to investment and hence employment creation remains an important goal of the modern state. Credit is at the centre of this mission and as the U.K. Review Committee on Insolvency Law and Practice aptly observed, “credit is the lifeblood of the modern industrialised economy” and “… the provision of credit for trade and industry stimulates production and encourages enterprise as well as helping individuals and businesses over difficult economic times”.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of African Law , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 68 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Report of the Review Committee: Insolvency Law and Practice, London, 1990, at 10 para.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 12, para. 20.

3 Ibid., 13, paras. 24–25.

4 Law of Suretyship Amendment Act (Chapter 44) which simply removes restrictions on women being sureties for their husbands' debts.

5 See s. 89 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

6 For a detailed discussion of the Roman Law origins of suretyship law in Roman-Dutch law, see Forsyth, C.F., Coney's The Law of Suretyship in Africa 3rd ed., Cape Town, 1982, ch. 1.Google Scholar

7 1974 (2) RLR 183.

8 1982 (1) ZLR 102.

9 The position is not very clear under Roman-Dutch law. Even so the position in Zimbabwe should be governed by the old Roman-Dutch authorities who had no concept of uberrimae fidei. See Wessels, Law of Contract, paras. 4026 and 4277.

10 See for instance Levert v. Barclays Bank [1995] 1 WLR 1260.

11 Wessels, op. cit, para. 4338.

12 Christie, R.H., Business Law in Zimbabwe, Cape Town, 1985, 461.Google Scholar

13 1980 ZLR 309.

14 Voet 46.1.39.

15 Rogerson N.O. v. Meyer (1837) 2 Men 238.

16 In re Brink (1865) 1 Roscoe 305.

17 In re Sydserf (1866) 5 Seale 193.

18 Voet 46.1.28.

19 Voet 46.1.27 Von Leuwen 4.4.15.

20 Mackenzie v. Basckin 1925 CPD 257.

21 Above, n. 19.

22 Goodwin v. Gray (1874) 22 WR 312.

23 1981 ZLR 296.

24 1961 RLR 162.

25 1979 (1) SA 69 (A).

26 Voet 18.4.12; J McNeil v. Estate of R Robertson (1882) 3 NLR 190.Google Scholar

27 1965 (1) SA 673 (T).

28 See generally Hahlo, H. R. and Kahn, E., The South African Legal System and its Background, Cape Town, 1968, 580.Google Scholar

29 See generally, Coney, op.cit.

30 Goldschmidt N.O. v. Kinnear (1885 ) 2 SAR 1.

31 Voet 46.1.30.

32 Above n. 6 and the relevant corresponding text.

33 This is a matter of definition of the suretyship contract itself. See for instance Corran & Anor v. Transvaal Government and Coull&s Trustee 1909 TS 605 at 612.

34 Voet 46.1.3; Van der Linden 1.14.10.

35 Beckett-Murray & Co v. Toubkin 1950 SA 245.

36 1964 (2) SA 713 (E).

37 See for instance R. v. Takawira 1965 RLR 162.

38 See for instance Hahlo, , “Rendering financial assistance”, 1964 South African Law Journal 281.Google Scholar

39 This possibility is assumed in Iscor Pension Fund v. Marine and Trade Insurance Co. Ltd 1961(1) SA 178 (T).

40 Carter v. Boehm (1766 ) 3 Burr 1905.

41 Mutual and Federal Insurance v. Oudtshoom Municipality 1985 (1) S A 419.

42 (1892) NLR 174.

43 1961 RLR 803 (FC).

44 See for instance Davies v. London and Provincial Marine Insurance Co. (1878) 8 Ch.D 469.

45 See Christie, op. cit, 88.

46 See for instance Springvale Ltd v. Edwards 1968(2) RLR 141.

47 (1871) LR 6 QB 597 at 607.

48 1978 RLR 129.

49 The pre-1891 position is summarized in Stride v. Wapener 1903 TH 383.

50 Barclays Bank v. O'Brien [1994 ] AC 180.

51 Ibid.

52 See Christie, op. cit.

53 1956 (1) SA 483 (A).

54 1903 TH 383.

55 18 Ch.D 188.

56 See discussion in Caney, op. cit., at 121.

57 1933 AD 330.

58 See for instance generally Ottawa Rhodesia (Private) Limited v. Burger 1974 (2) RLR 183.

59 Voet 46.1.27.

60 Voet 46.1.30.

61 Such as where the debtor has expressly stopped the surety from entering into the suretyship contract.

62 Klopper v. Van Straaten (1894) 11 SC 94.

63 See Coney, op. cit. at 125.

64 Voet 46.1.14.

65 See Caney, op. cit. at 113.

66 Voet 16.1.21.

67 See Caney, op. cit. at 149.

68 See Hart v. Corder 1973 (3) SA 11.

69 1968 (1) RLR 39.

70 At 43.

71 1909 TS 324.

72 See obiter Noakes v. Whiteing at 43.

73 See Lotz, , “The law of suretyship”, in Joubert, The Law of South African, vol. 26, 150.Google Scholar

74 Ibid.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 See for instance Colonial Government v. Smith (1901) 8 SC 38; Pretorius v. Van Zyl 1927 OPD 226.

78 Zimbabwe Football Association v. Mafuruse 1985 (1) ZLR 244 (HC).

79 Ibid.