Felix and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (49134/2013) [2024] ZAGPPHC 483 (23 May 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted. After considering the grounds for appeal and the submissions of both parties, the judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 483
- Parties
- Applicant: Felix, Jose Americo Goncalves; Applicant: Felix, Maria Judite Pestana; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Sheriff of the Court
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 49134/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interim Interdict.
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal refused with costs on the attorney and client scale.
- Judges
- Millar
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Interim Interdict, Costs Order, Superior Courts Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Felix, Jose Americo Goncalves
Applicant
Felix, Maria Judite Pestana
Applicant
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Sheriff of the Court
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Interim Interdict.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have met the statutory test for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
- 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect of success or another compelling reason for granting leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether costs should follow the result.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal or any other compelling reason for leave to appeal to be granted. After considering the grounds for appeal and the submissions of both parties, the judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No. 49134/2013
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED
DATE: 23 May 2024
SIGNATURE:.
In the matter between:
FELIX, JOSE AMERICO GONCALVES
1st APPLICANT
FELIX, MARIA JUDITE PESTANA
2ND APPLICANT
And
NEDBANK LIMITED
1ST RESPONDENT
SHERIFF OF THE COURT
2nd RESPONDENT
Coram: Millar J
Heard on: 23 May 2024
Delivered: 23 May 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 11h00 on 23 May 2024.
ORDER
It is Ordered:
[1] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
JUDGMENT
MILLAR J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicants against the dismissal of an urgent application for the granting of an interim interdict with punitive costs on 15 May 2024.
[2] The test for granting leave to appeal The test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present matter is set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act[1] as follows:
“(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration”
[3] I have considered the grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons given by me for the judgment. I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the first respondent.
[4] I am not persuaded that another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is some other compelling reason why leave to appeal should be granted.
[5] The costs follow the result.
[6] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
[6.1] The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the
scale as between attorney and client.
A MILLAR
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON: 23 MAY 2024 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 23 MAY 2024 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. I MURERIWA INSTRUCTED BY: GARY SEGAL ATTORNEYS REFERENCE: MR. G SEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: ADV. D VAN NIEKERK INSTRUCTED BY: ENDERSTEIN MALUMBETE INC REFERENCE: N MALUMBETE-MALULEKE NO APPEARANCE FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT
[1] 10 of 2013.