Firstrand Bank Limited v Schmidt and Another (2019/21148) [2021] ZAGPJHC 599 (25 October 2021)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Schmidt and Another (2019/21148) [2021] ZAGPJHC 599 (25 October 2021)

The court found that the respondents failed to set out any grounds indicating where the court erred in confirming the rule nisi for provisional sequestration. The application for leave to appeal did not address the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, nor did it demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The constitutional issues raised were not substantiated or linked to the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, there was no basis for granting leave to appeal.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 599
Parties
Applicant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Denise Bonita Schmidt; Respondent: Denise Bonita Schmidt (in her capacity as executor in the Estate Late Samuel Tshisimogo Motsumi)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2021
Case Number
2019/21148
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confirmation of Provisional Sequestration Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
NN Bam
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Provisional Sequestration, Superior Courts Act Section 17
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Provisional Sequestration Superior Courts Act Section 17

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Applicant

Denise Bonita Schmidt

Respondent

Denise Bonita Schmidt (in her capacity as executor in the Estate Late Samuel Tshisimogo Motsumi)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Confirmation of Provisional Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have established grounds for leave to appeal against the confirmation of the provisional sequestration order.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal satisfies the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  3. 3 Whether any constitutional rights of the respondents justify granting leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to set out any grounds indicating where the court erred in confirming the rule nisi for provisional sequestration. The application for leave to appeal did not address the requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, nor did it demonstrate reasonable prospects of success or any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. The constitutional issues raised were not substantiated or linked to the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, there was no basis for granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.