Chiura and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (96723/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 971 (29 November 2016)

Chiura and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (96723/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 971 (29 November 2016)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any substantiated grounds for their application for leave to appeal, relying only on vague assertions of error. The judge considered the arguments and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed. Given the lack of foundation for the grounds of appeal, the court held that an exemplary costs order on the attorney and client scale was justified.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 971
Parties
Applicant: Shepard Tendayi Chiura; Applicant: Ester Chiura; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Case Number
96723/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Initial Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
T Brenner
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order, Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order Prospects of Success

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shepard Tendayi Chiura

Applicant

Ester Chiura

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the order dismissing their application.
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
  3. 3 Whether an exemplary costs order is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any substantiated grounds for their application for leave to appeal, relying only on vague assertions of error. The judge considered the arguments and concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed. Given the lack of foundation for the grounds of appeal, the court held that an exemplary costs order on the attorney and client scale was justified.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for leave to appeal against the order dated 3 November 2016 read with the judgment dated 21 November 2016 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are directed to pay the costs of the application on a scale as between attorney and client.