FirstRand Bank Ltd v Ayob and Another [2025] ZAGPPHC 157 (15 April 2025)

FirstRand Bank Ltd v Ayob and Another: A deal undone. What this R64 million suretyship saga teaches us about trust, tech, and the truth.

Every business relationship is built on two things: trust and documentation. When one fails, the other better be bulletproof.

In FirstRand Bank Limited v Ayob and Gani, we witness the collision of loyalty, legacy, and law—and the R64 million fallout that followed.

The setup

Hanmar Beleggings, once known as Rashida Manufacturing, was extended multiple credit facilities by FirstRand Bank totalling over R50 million. To secure those loans, directors Nizamu Ayob and Shanna Gani signed unlimited suretyships, binding them personally for Hanmar’s debts.

At least, that’s what the documents showed.

When Hanmar defaulted, FirstRand called in the sureties. But rather than settle, Ayob and Gani pivoted: They claimed the signatures weren’t valid.

Cue: legal chaos.

The challenge

The respondents mounted a legal defence based on technicalities—arguing that:

• The suretyships were electronic and didn’t meet formal requirements under the General Law Amendment Act.
• The signatures were forged.
• Even if they weren’t, the original documents weren’t produced.

It was an audacious move—especially after both had previously acknowledged the debts in a signed Memorandum of Agreement.

But here’s where this case gets fascinating.

The turning point

What the respondents forgot? The meeting was recorded.

Thanks to pandemic-era protocol, the 2021 signing took place virtually. The bank’s representative, Sharon Crowie, recorded the meeting via Microsoft Teams. That footage—meticulously preserved, submitted, and confirmed—showed both respondents clearly:

• Reviewing the documents.
• Signing in manuscript.
• Initialling every page.
• Sending the signed versions back via email.

The judge had one word for their subsequent denials: despicable.

The lesson

This wasn’t just a victory for FirstRand. It was a masterclass in how clear digital governance, smart evidence handling, and compliance with tech laws can make or break a case.

The Court affirmed the admissibility of:

1. Video evidence under RICA (the interception laws);
2. Emails and scans as data messages under ECTA;
3. Confirmatory affidavits validating process and identity.

When trust breaks, it’s not about what was said. It’s about what can be proved.

How ITLawCo can help

At ITLawCo, we specialise in making sure your contracts, electronic signatures, and communication trails work for you, not against you.

Whether you’re:

• A bank issuing suretyships via hybrid channels; or
• A scale-up relying on virtual onboarding and electronic evidence—

We ensure your legal and tech frameworks are court-proof, client-ready, and built for the real world.

Because in the age of screenshots and Teams recordings, good governance isn’t optional. It’s everything.

Let’s make sure your next agreement doesn’t just close fast—but stands up when tested.

Get in touch