Chiura and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others (20740/2013, 7580/2007, 1730/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 973 (12 November 2014)

Chiura and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others (20740/2013, 7580/2007, 1730/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 973 (12 November 2014)

The court found that while the applicants' applications for leave to appeal were procedurally deficient and inelegantly drafted, they did not amount to vexatious, reckless, or abusive litigation. The applicants' actions were motivated by a genuine sense of injustice arising from the invalid sale of their property, which resulted in significant financial loss. The court exercised its discretion not to set aside the applications for leave to appeal, instead granting the applicants leave to amend their applications to comply with the Rules. The application for security for costs was dismissed, as the applicants' conduct did not meet the threshold for vexatious or reckless litigation. No...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 973
Parties
Applicant: Shepard Tendayi Chiura; Applicant: Ester Chiura; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Mishan, Shlomo; Respondent: Mishan, Miriam; Respondent: Sheriff Halfway House; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Respondent: Joyspring Trade & Investments 11 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Richard Ngwenya & Partners; Respondent: Webber Wentzel Attorneys; Respondent: Dainfern Valley Homeowners Association; Respondent: Johannesburg City Council; Respondent: Eskom
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2014
Case Number
20740/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Security for Costs and Application to Set Aside Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed; applicants granted leave to amend applications for leave to appeal; no order as to costs.
Judges
N Kollapen
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Leave to Appeal, Sale in Execution, Abuse of Process, Irregular Proceedings
Civil Procedure Land and Property Security for Costs Leave to Appeal Sale in Execution Abuse of Process Irregular Proceedings

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shepard Tendayi Chiura

Applicant

Ester Chiura

Applicant

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Mishan, Shlomo

Respondent

Mishan, Miriam

Respondent

Sheriff Halfway House

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Joyspring Trade & Investments 11 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Richard Ngwenya & Partners

Respondent

Webber Wentzel Attorneys

Respondent

Dainfern Valley Homeowners Association

Respondent

Johannesburg City Council

Respondent

Eskom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Security for Costs and Application to Set Aside Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants should be ordered to furnish security for costs in terms of Rule 47(3).
  2. 2 Whether the consolidated applications for leave to appeal should be set aside as irregular proceedings under Rule 30 and 30A.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct in litigation is vexatious, reckless, or an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicants' applications for leave to appeal were procedurally deficient and inelegantly drafted, they did not amount to vexatious, reckless, or abusive litigation. The applicants' actions were motivated by a genuine sense of injustice arising from the invalid sale of their property, which resulted in significant financial loss. The court exercised its discretion not to set aside the applications for leave to appeal, instead granting the applicants leave to amend their applications to comply with the Rules. The application for security for costs was dismissed, as the applicants' conduct did not meet the threshold for vexatious or reckless litigation. No...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed; applicants granted leave to amend applications for leave to appeal; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Applicants are granted leave to amend their application for leave to appeal to comply with the Rules of Court within ten days from the date of this order.
  • The application for security for costs in terms of Rule 47(3) is dismissed.