This blog was co-authored by Adrienne Hendricks, Trainee Associate and Adriaan Lourens, Candidate Attorney.

A company entered into a suretyship agreement with the respondent, who bound himself as surety to the company. The company claimed the outstanding sum plus interest from the surety.

The surety alleged that he did not recall having bound himself as surety in his personal capacity and that the company (as beneficiary under the surety) had a duty to inform him of the legal consequences of suretyship, which was not done. As a result, the surety contended that he should not be held liable, as he was unaware of the nature and legal implications of the agreement.

The court found that there was no legal duty to inform the surety of the consequences of the suretyship agreement. The court also determined that the surety was aware that he was signing a suretyship agreement and understood its implications, based on the available factual information.

Generally, courts accept that a contracting party knows and understands the agreement that is signed, and courts will not likely rule that a party can avoid liability under a signed written agreement. While there is no general legal duty to explain the consequences of a suretyship agreement and waivers of exceptions and the like, in some exceptional cases courts have determined it is in the public interest to explain the contents of the suretyship agreement to the surety.

The full judgment can be accessed here: Pioneer Drill and Blast (Pty) Ltd v Deysel (Leave to Appeal) (055056/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 217 (3 March 2025)