Coetzee and Others v Nedbank Limited (42242/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 566 (25 May 2023)

Coetzee and Others v Nedbank Limited (42242/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 566 (25 May 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the money judgment in favour of Nedbank. The funds were disbursed in terms of the agreement, and the applicants' defence based on non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions was not substantiated. The requirements of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, and there was no compelling reason or interests of justice warranting the granting of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 566
Parties
Applicant: Coetzee Lawrence Owen; Applicant: Coetzee Lyn Oswald; Applicant: Coetzee Andre Leander; Respondent: Nedbank
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 May 2023
Case Number
42242/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Money Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
Judges
ML Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Money Judgment, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Superior Courts Act, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Money Judgment Reasonable Prospect of Success Superior Courts Act Costs Award

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Coetzee Lawrence Owen

Applicant

Coetzee Lyn Oswald

Applicant

Coetzee Andre Leander

Applicant

Nedbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Money Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there are compelling reasons or interests of justice warranting the granting of leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' defence regarding non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the money judgment in favour of Nedbank. The funds were disbursed in terms of the agreement, and the applicants' defence based on non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions was not substantiated. The requirements of section 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, and there was no compelling reason or interests of justice warranting the granting of leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs on an attorney and client scale.