Adam and Others v Nedbank Limited (9267/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 637 (15 October 2019)

Adam and Others v Nedbank Limited (9267/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 637 (15 October 2019)

The court found that the applicants did not raise a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application. Their opposition was based solely on the fact that Louis Pasteur Investment Limited was under business rescue, and not on the issue of their liability as sureties. The subsequent claim that they lacked access to the business rescue practitioner's documents did not constitute a valid defence. The court was not satisfied that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 637
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Adam; Applicant: Frederick Herselman; Applicant: Lloyd LPI Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: First Clinic Properties One Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 October 2019
Case Number
9267/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
MTATI
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Suretyship, Business Rescue, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Summary Judgment Suretyship Business Rescue Leave to Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Adam

Applicant

Frederick Herselman

Applicant

Lloyd LPI Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

First Clinic Properties One Limited

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have raised a bona fide defence to the summary judgment granted against them.
  2. 2 Whether the lack of access to business rescue practitioner documents constitutes a valid ground for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether another court might reasonably arrive at a different conclusion.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants did not raise a bona fide defence to the summary judgment application. Their opposition was based solely on the fact that Louis Pasteur Investment Limited was under business rescue, and not on the issue of their liability as sureties. The subsequent claim that they lacked access to the business rescue practitioner's documents did not constitute a valid defence. The court was not satisfied that another court would reach a different conclusion, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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