This is an AI-generated summary of a selected monitored public legal source and may omit context. It is general information only, not legal advice, and is not a substitute for reading the source or consulting an attorney.
AI summary
The Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether set-off extinguished the liability of two sureties who also held credit balances with the bank. It held that set-off operated on 17 June 2021 in respect of the seventh respondent, but not in respect of the eighth respondent because of the mortgage bond wording.
This may be relevant to insolvency and banking disputes involving suretyship, set-off, and account terms.
Evidence from source
The question on appeal is whether, before the bank's liquidation, the indebtedness of these two sureties was extinguished by set-off against the credit balances on their accounts.
Supports: Summary sentence 1
It follows that set-off did not apply between the bank and Ghousbibi. Ghousbibi’s liability as surety, limited to R6 million, remains.
Supports: Summary sentence 2
his liability under the suretyship was extinguished on 17 June 2021, and Crestar’s indebtedness to the bank was reduced by R6 million with effect from that date.
Supports: Summary sentence 2