Doola v First Rand Bank Limited Trading Private Bank and As FNB (13723/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 517 (27 May 2024)

Doola v First Rand Bank Limited Trading Private Bank and As FNB (13723/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 517 (27 May 2024)

The court found that the order sought to be appealed against is interlocutory, has no final effect, and does not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for leave to appeal. The court held that granting leave would only delay the resolution of the dispute and result in unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 517
Parties
Applicant: Doola, Riyadh; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited Trading Private Bank and As FNB
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2024
Case Number
13723/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
P H Malungana
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Rule 30 Irregular Steps, Rule 35 Discovery, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Rule 30 Irregular Steps Rule 35 Discovery Costs Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doola, Riyadh

Applicant

First Rand Bank Limited Trading Private Bank and As FNB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory order is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's grounds for leave to appeal disclose reasonable prospects of success.
  3. 3 Whether the punitive costs order was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order sought to be appealed against is interlocutory, has no final effect, and does not dispose of a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for leave to appeal. The court held that granting leave would only delay the resolution of the dispute and result in unnecessary expenditure of judicial resources. The application for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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