Firstrand Bank Limited v Makaleng (29688/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 321 (3 December 2015)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Makaleng (29688/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 321 (3 December 2015)

The court found that there are conflicting judgments regarding the requirements for foreclosure, specifically on the necessity of personal service and the status of practice directives. Given the prevalence of these issues and their constitutional and procedural significance, the court determined that leave to appeal should be granted to allow the Supreme Court of Appeal to resolve the inconsistencies and clarify the law. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for uniformity in the application of foreclosure procedures.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 321
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Makaleng MH
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2015
Case Number
29688/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Money Claim and Execution
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
Judges
S Weiner
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Personal Service, Foreclosure Procedure, Practice Directives, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Personal Service Foreclosure Procedure Practice Directives Judicial Discretion

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

Makaleng MH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on Money Claim and Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted regarding the requirements for foreclosure and execution orders.
  2. 2 Whether personal service is mandatory before granting foreclosure.
  3. 3 Whether practice directives have binding status equivalent to court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are conflicting judgments regarding the requirements for foreclosure, specifically on the necessity of personal service and the status of practice directives. Given the prevalence of these issues and their constitutional and procedural significance, the court determined that leave to appeal should be granted to allow the Supreme Court of Appeal to resolve the inconsistencies and clarify the law. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discretion and the need for uniformity in the application of foreclosure procedures.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.