Du Raan v Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd and Another (47785/2009) [2018] ZAGPPHC 112 (2 March 2018)

Du Raan v Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd and Another (47785/2009) [2018] ZAGPPHC 112 (2 March 2018)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as required by Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds of appeal were not sufficiently articulated, and the applicant did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court held that the judgment granted in 2009 remained valid and enforceable for 30 years, and the repeal of Rule 66(1) did not affect the right to execute the judgment. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 112
Parties
Applicant: Jan Du Raan; Respondent: Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Fedsure Participation Mortgage Bond Managers (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2018
Case Number
47785/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment Delivered on 6 November 2017.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Makume
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Uniform Rules of Court, Interpretation Act, Superannuation of Judgment, Writ of Execution
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Uniform Rules of Court Interpretation Act Superannuation of Judgment Writ of Execution

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Du Raan

Applicant

Fedbond Nominees (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Fedsure Participation Mortgage Bond Managers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment Delivered on 6 November 2017.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal under Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment granted in 2009 had become superannuated under the repealed Rule 66(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the right to execute the 2009 judgment was lost after three years.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for leave to appeal as required by Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds of appeal were not sufficiently articulated, and the applicant did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The court held that the judgment granted in 2009 remained valid and enforceable for 30 years, and the repeal of Rule 66(1) did not affect the right to execute the judgment. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.