Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Limited v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (8817/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 85 (20 November 2008)

Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Limited v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (8817/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 85 (20 November 2008)

The court found that the proposed amendment to the notice of motion did not comply with the procedural requirements of rule 28(2) and sought to introduce a new cause of action, abandoning the original interdict. The issues the applicant wished to refer for oral evidence were already ventilated during argument and would not advance the applicant's case. It was common cause that no agreement was concluded on 30 November 2007, and the status quo sought to be maintained did not exist. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for both final and interim relief. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with...

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 85
Parties
Applicant: Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Limited; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Second Respondent; Respondent: Third Respondent
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 November 2008
Case Number
8817/2008
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Main Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ngewu
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interdict, Amendment of Notice of Motion, Authority of Agents, Closed Tender Process
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Interdict Amendment of Notice of Motion Authority of Agents Closed Tender Process

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

Comwezi Security Services (Pty) Limited

Applicant

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Second Respondent

Respondent

Third Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in refusing the proposed amendment to the notice of motion.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should have been referred for oral evidence regarding the alleged agreement of 30 November 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the proposed amendment to the notice of motion did not comply with the procedural requirements of rule 28(2) and sought to introduce a new cause of action, abandoning the original interdict. The issues the applicant wished to refer for oral evidence were already ventilated during argument and would not advance the applicant's case. It was common cause that no agreement was concluded on 30 November 2007, and the status quo sought to be maintained did not exist. The applicant failed to meet the requirements for both final and interim relief. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.