In October 2025 the High Court granted default judgment against a surety after neither the surety nor her attorney appeared for the scheduled trial, finding that the surety’s dilatory conduct and her attorney’s failure to manage the case offered no justification to delay finalisation. The court emphasised that attorneys are officers of the court and must take all reasonable steps to ensure representation, progress pre‑trial issues properly, and avoid prejudice to the opposing party.

The dispute arose from a signed suretyship in favour of a creditor of a company in liquidation. After payment by the liquidator reduced the principal debt, the creditor claimed the balance from the surety. A defence of prescription was raised on the pleadings but was never set down for determination and did not feature in the pre‑trial process. The matter was certified trial‑ready.  On the trial date there was no appearance for the defence, no application for postponement, and no adequate explanation for non‑attendance. The court accepted an affidavit from the claimant’s attorney setting out the pre‑trial chronology and the failed attempts to engage with the defence in the days before trial.

On these facts the court held there was no good reason for the absence of the surety or her attorney and that the claimant should not be prejudiced by repeated delays largely attributable to the defence.  The court noted that the attorney had not briefed counsel, made no alternative arrangements for representation, and did not even secure the attendance of the client at court.  The explanation offered (changes within the attorney’s firm and personal unavailability) did not absolve the firm from its professional responsibilities.  The court also observed that the pleaded defences, including prescription and an alleged lack of understanding of the suretyship, were unlikely to succeed and, if genuinely relied upon, should have been actively progressed well before trial.

Default judgment was therefore entered for the outstanding amount, with interest at the prescribed rate and party‑and‑party costs on the high court scale.  While the court considered that a punitive costs order against the surety’s attorney might be justified on these facts, it declined to make such an order because it was not sought by the claimant. The judgment ends with a caution that attorneys must not encourage or tolerate delay. Litigation is expensive and emotionally taxing, and neglect of procedural obligations unfairly burdens both the opposing party and the court.

Afgri Veevoere ‘n Divisie van Afgri (Pty) Ltd v Kotze (788/2019) [2025] ZAWCHC 489 (24 October 2025)