Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025)
The court found that its previous interpretation of 'legal proceeding' and 'lawfully in its possession' under section 133(1) of the Companies Act differed from other judgments and that these differences raise a legal question of importance. The court held that the matter should be considered by the Supreme Court of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 304
- Parties
- Applicant: Capitec Bank Limited; Respondent: Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023/127918
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- Judges
- Van der Walt
- Legal Topics
- Companies Act Section 133, Leave to Appeal, Legal Proceeding Definition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Capitec Bank Limited
Applicant
Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interpretation of 'legal proceeding' in section 133(1) of the Companies Act includes the rei vindicatio.
- 2 Whether previous interpretations of 'lawfully in its possession' under section 133(1) are correct.
- 3 Whether the matter raises a legal question of sufficient importance to warrant consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that its previous interpretation of 'legal proceeding' and 'lawfully in its possession' under section 133(1) of the Companies Act differed from other judgments and that these differences raise a legal question of importance. The court held that the matter should be considered by the Supreme Court of Appeal to resolve the divergent interpretations and ensure uniformity in the application of section 133(1). Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case no: 2023/127918
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
In the matter between:
CAPITEC BANK LIMITED
Applicant
and
UBUNTU FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE GRAYSTON
(PTY) LTD
Respondent
This judgment was delivered by uploading it to the court online digital database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties on 19 March 2025.
JUDGMENT
VAN DER WALT AJ
[1] This is a judgment in an application for leave to appeal. The applicant is Capitec Bank Limited. The respondent is Ubuntu Family
Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Limited, now in liquidation, who abides the decision of this court.
[2] In the judgment which is the subject of this application for leave to appeal, I interpreted subsection 133(1) of the Companies Act.[1] In doing so, I found that the interpretations of most pertinently the phrases “legal proceeding” (if had been interpreted not to include the rei vindicatio) and “lawfully in its possession” in previous judgments of this court and that of other divisions are, with respect, incorrect.
[3] The decision appealed against therefore involves a question of law of importance in respect of which a decision of the Supreme Court
of Appeal is required to resolve the differences of opinion.
[4] In the event, I make the following order:
1. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
2. Costs are to be costs in the appeal.
Nico van der Walt
Acting Judge, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg.
Heard: 19 March 2025
Judgment: 19 March 2025
Appearances:
For the applicant
Mr W.G. Pretorius
Instructed by Brooks & Braatvedt Inc.
For the respondent
Mr S. Janse Van Rensburg SC
Instructed by liquidators Messrs Seima and Sibanda
[1]
Act 71 of 2008.