Coetzee and Others v RMB Private Bank Limited (2015/24931) [2021] ZAGPPHC 358 (14 May 2021)

Coetzee and Others v RMB Private Bank Limited (2015/24931) [2021] ZAGPPHC 358 (14 May 2021)

After considering the submissions of both parties and the grounds raised in the application for leave to appeal, the court found that there are prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. The test in Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act is subjective and requires certainty that another court will differ. The court was satisfied that the applicants met this threshold and granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench. Costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 358
Parties
Applicant: ABF Coetzee N.O; Applicant: AJ Coetzee N.O; Applicant: GR Coetzee N.O; Applicant: ERF 75 Pecanwood Estate (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: AJ Coetzee; Applicant: Softusa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Brooklyn Chambers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: GR Coetzee; Applicant: Lenco Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: RMB Private Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2021
Case Number
2015/24931
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the North Gauteng High Court. Costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.
Judges
Mokose
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Superior Courts Act, Costs in the Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Superior Courts Act Costs in the Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABF Coetzee N.O

Applicant

AJ Coetzee N.O

Applicant

GR Coetzee N.O

Applicant

ERF 75 Pecanwood Estate (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

AJ Coetzee

Applicant

Softusa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Brooklyn Chambers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

GR Coetzee

Applicant

Lenco Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

RMB Private Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Full Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on the merits of the case.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Full Bench of the High Court.
  3. 3 Whether the costs of the application for leave to appeal should be costs in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

After considering the submissions of both parties and the grounds raised in the application for leave to appeal, the court found that there are prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. The test in Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act is subjective and requires certainty that another court will differ. The court was satisfied that the applicants met this threshold and granted leave to appeal to the Full Bench. Costs of the application for leave to appeal were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the Full Bench of the North Gauteng High Court. Costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the Full Bench of this Court.
  • The costs of the application for leave to appeal are costs in the appeal.