De Klerk v Nedbank Limited (5700/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 42 (13 February 2023)

De Klerk v Nedbank Limited (5700/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 42 (13 February 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to persuade it that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the summary judgment. The arguments advanced did not establish a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The court held that the issues raised, including the enforceability of the suretyship clause, discrepancies in claimed amounts, and the effect of the retrenchment benefit insurance, did not provide a sound, rational basis for granting leave to appeal. The application was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Wilma Susanna De Klerk; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Case Number
5700/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
AS Boonzaaier
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Certificates of Balance, Suretyship Enforceability, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Leave to Appeal Certificates of Balance Suretyship Enforceability 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilma Susanna De Klerk

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suretyship clause relied upon by the plaintiff is contra bonos mores and unenforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the certificates of balance provided by the plaintiff are accurate and reliable.
  3. 3 Whether the amounts and interest rates claimed in the summary judgment application differ materially from those in the default judgment application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to persuade it that another court would come to a different conclusion regarding the summary judgment. The arguments advanced did not establish a reasonable prospect of success on appeal, as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The court held that the issues raised, including the enforceability of the suretyship clause, discrepancies in claimed amounts, and the effect of the retrenchment benefit insurance, did not provide a sound, rational basis for granting leave to appeal. The application was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

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