Biyana v Nedbank Limited (46214/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 57 (15 February 2022)

Biyana v Nedbank Limited (46214/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 57 (15 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the stringent threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The arguments advanced in the application for leave to appeal were substantially the same as those raised in the rescission application, and the judgment provided a clear background of the proceedings. The court reiterated that there were no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was confined to the rescission application, as the judge did not adjudicate the summary judgment. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 57
Parties
Applicant: Ludwe Mbasa Biyana; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
46214/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhapi V V
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rescission Application, Summary Judgment, Section 17 Superior Courts Act
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Rescission Application Summary Judgment Section 17 Superior Courts Act

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ludwe Mbasa Biyana

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success that another court would reach a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal should extend to the summary judgment granted by Maumela J.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the stringent threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The arguments advanced in the application for leave to appeal were substantially the same as those raised in the rescission application, and the judgment provided a clear background of the proceedings. The court reiterated that there were no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was confined to the rescission application, as the judge did not adjudicate the summary judgment. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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