Chrystal Ball Properties 95 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Absa Bank Limited (07730/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 438 (29 October 2019)

Chrystal Ball Properties 95 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Absa Bank Limited (07730/2014) [2019] ZAGPJHC 438 (29 October 2019)

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of showing reasonable prospects of success on appeal. No defence was raised in the opposing papers, and no affidavit was filed to disclose a defence to the main action. The application for postponement was not supported by any substantive reason and was considered a delaying tactic. The requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act were not met. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 438
Parties
Applicant: Chrystal Ball Properties 95 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Pouroullis, Christos; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Case Number
07730/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.L. Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Summary Judgment, Prospects of Success, Postponement, Onus of Applicant
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Summary Judgment Prospects of Success Postponement Onus of Applicant

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chrystal Ball Properties 95 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Pouroullis, Christos

Applicant

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against summary judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the application for postponement was justified or a delaying tactic.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants discharged the onus to establish entitlement to leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of showing reasonable prospects of success on appeal. No defence was raised in the opposing papers, and no affidavit was filed to disclose a defence to the main action. The application for postponement was not supported by any substantive reason and was considered a delaying tactic. The requirements for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act were not met. Consequently, 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.