First Group Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (A32/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1947 (30 November 2023)

First Group Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (A32/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1947 (30 November 2023)

The court found that, after considering the order, the reasons in the judgment, and the arguments presented, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Furthermore, no compelling reasons were advanced to justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1947
Parties
Appellant: First Group Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Credit Regulator; Respondent: National Consumer Tribunal
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
A32/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Millar, G Ally
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Costs Order

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Group Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

National Credit Regulator

Respondent

National Consumer Tribunal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the judgment and order handed down on 19 September 2023.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether there are compelling reasons justifying the granting of leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after considering the order, the reasons in the judgment, and the arguments presented, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. Furthermore, no compelling reasons were advanced to justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and costs were awarded against the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.