Absa Bank v S and Another (53895/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 806 (13 November 2015)

Absa Bank v S and Another (53895/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 806 (13 November 2015)

The court found that the applicant had no prospects of success on appeal. The alleged compromise agreement to pay R12,000 per month was entered into only by the applicant's husband, who is married out of community of property, and thus did not bind the applicant. The applicant failed to produce any agreement signed by itself. The attempt to delay the sequestration application on the basis of outstanding costs was rejected, as there was no court order requiring costs to be settled before proceeding, and the applicant had not served a bill of costs in time. The court held that the applicant had committed acts of insolvency by advertising for sequestration on multiple occasions and did not...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 806
Parties
Applicant: Absa Bank; Respondent: [E…..] [A……] [S……]; Respondent: [A……..] [J…….] [H……..] [S……….]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 November 2015
Case Number
53895/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Sequestration Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Twala
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Leave to Appeal, Compromise Agreement, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Sequestration Leave to Appeal Compromise Agreement Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank

Applicant

[E…..] [A……] [S……]

Respondent

[A……..] [J…….] [H……..] [S……….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has prospects of success on appeal against the sequestration order.
  2. 2 Whether a compromise agreement to pay the debt at R12,000 per month was valid and binding on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the sequestration application should have been delayed due to outstanding costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had no prospects of success on appeal. The alleged compromise agreement to pay R12,000 per month was entered into only by the applicant's husband, who is married out of community of property, and thus did not bind the applicant. The applicant failed to produce any agreement signed by itself. The attempt to delay the sequestration application on the basis of outstanding costs was rejected, as there was no court order requiring costs to be settled before proceeding, and the applicant had not served a bill of costs in time. The court held that the applicant had committed acts of insolvency by advertising for sequestration on multiple occasions and did not...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.