Firstrand Bank Limited v Keliana Group Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (5098/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 161 (21 February 2025)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Keliana Group Pty Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (5098/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 161 (21 February 2025)

The court found that the intervening party lacked locus standi to bring the leave to appeal application on behalf of the respondent company, as the powers of the company had vested in the liquidators following the winding up order. In her personal capacity, the intervening party failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The grounds raised were previously considered and dismissed in the main judgment, and the alleged bona fide defence was not supported by the summary judgment findings. The pending action proceedings did not constitute a valid lis alibi pendens defence, as the parties and causes of action differed. The new ground regarding the value of the bonded...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Keliana Group (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Nonhlanhla Ruth Mavie
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 February 2025
Case Number
5098/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Final Winding Up Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
MMP Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Final Winding Up, Locus Standi, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Final Winding Up Locus Standi Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Applicant

Keliana Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nonhlanhla Ruth Mavie

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Final Winding Up Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the intervening party has locus standi to bring the leave to appeal application on behalf of the respondent company.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success under section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether the court erred in ordering final winding up despite pending action proceedings and alleged bona fide defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the intervening party lacked locus standi to bring the leave to appeal application on behalf of the respondent company, as the powers of the company had vested in the liquidators following the winding up order. In her personal capacity, the intervening party failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for the appeal. The grounds raised were previously considered and dismissed in the main judgment, and the alleged bona fide defence was not supported by the summary judgment findings. The pending action proceedings did not constitute a valid lis alibi pendens defence, as the parties and causes of action differed. The new ground regarding the value of the bonded...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The intervening party is ordered to pay the costs of this application.