Doola v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a RMB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1419 (7 November 2023)

Doola v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a RMB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1419 (7 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The interlocutory order in question did not dispose of any substantive issue in the litigation nor was it definitive of the parties' rights, and thus was not appealable under section 17(1)(c). The applicant did not make out a case for relevance regarding the documents sought under Rule 35(12), and his argument that the National Credit Act should apply was illogical given the facts. The authority of the bank's deponent was established, and the striking out application was correctly dismissed due to lack of prejudice. The...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1419
Parties
Applicant: Doola, Riyadh; Respondent: First Rand Bank Ltd t/a RMB Private Bank and as FNB
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2023
Case Number
2020/13723
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Rule 35 Discovery, Punitive Costs, Condonation, National Credit Act Application
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Rule 35 Discovery Punitive Costs Condonation National Credit Act Application

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 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doola, Riyadh

Applicant

First Rand Bank Ltd t/a RMB Private Bank and as FNB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutory order is appealable in terms of section 17(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act and the interests of justice.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to rely on Rule 35(12) for discovery and whether relevance was established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal as required by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The interlocutory order in question did not dispose of any substantive issue in the litigation nor was it definitive of the parties' rights, and thus was not appealable under section 17(1)(c). The applicant did not make out a case for relevance regarding the documents sought under Rule 35(12), and his argument that the National Credit Act should apply was illogical given the facts. The authority of the bank's deponent was established, and the striking out application was correctly dismissed due to lack of prejudice. The...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The late filing of the application is condoned.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.