Gopane and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (49663/2009) [2020] ZAGPJHC 321 (8 September 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAGPJHC 321
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- H M Vally
- Case number
- 49663/2009
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- H M Vally
- Case number
- 49663/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Applicants did not raise any new grounds of appeal that challenged the findings of fact or law in the original judgment. Instead, they repeated submissions previously made in their application for rescission, which had already been addressed and dismissed. The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success or that there was any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard as required by Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Gopane, Mogapi George
Applicant Counsel: Legal Aid South AfricaGopane, Veronica Thandekile
Applicant Counsel: Legal Aid South AfricaFirstrand Bank Limited
Respondent Counsel: Hammond Pole Attorneys03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Respondent complied with Section 129(1) of the National Credit Act.
- 02
Whether the summons was properly served on the Applicants.
- 03
Whether the Applicants had settled their indebtedness to the Respondent at the time judgment was granted.
- 04
Whether the orders declaring properties executable were unconstitutional.
- 05
Whether the grounds of appeal satisfy the requirements of Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act for granting leave to appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The Applicants contend that the Respondent failed to comply with Section 129(1) of the National Credit Act, that the summons was not served on them, that they had settled their indebtedness to the Respondent at the time judgment was granted, and that the orders declaring properties executable were unconstitutional.
- Respondent
- The Respondent maintains that all procedural requirements were met, including compliance with Section 129(1) of the National Credit Act and proper service of summons. The Respondent asserts that the Applicants' indebtedness was not settled at the time of judgment and that the orders granted were constitutionally valid.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may be granted only if the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Applicants did not raise any new grounds of appeal that challenged the findings of fact or law in the original judgment. Instead, they repeated submissions previously made in their application for rescission, which had already been addressed and dismissed. The Applicants failed to demonstrate that the appeal had reasonable prospects of success or that there was any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard as required by Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Grounds of appeal must challenge the court's findings of fact or conclusions of law, not merely repeat previous submissions.
- The requirements of Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act are not satisfied by the Applicants' submissions.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The Applicants are to pay the Respondent's costs.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 49663/2009
In the matter between:
GOPANE,
MOGAPI
GEORGE
First Applicant
GOPANE,
VERONICA
THANDEKILE
Second Applicant
and
FIRSTRAND BANK
LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL
VALLY AJ:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal in which the Applicants attempt to make out submissions of fact as their grounds of appeal.
2. The Applicants’ submissions are that; the Respondent failed to comply with Section 129(1) of the National Credit Act No. 34 of 2005, the summons was not served on them, the Applicants had settled their indebtedness to the Respondent at the time that judgment was granted against them and that orders declaring properties specifically executable were unconstitutional.
3. Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act No. 10 of 2013 deals with the circumstances under which leave to appeal may be granted; that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration or where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case or the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.
4. That being said, grounds of appeal are intended to challenge the court’s findings of fact or conclusions of law. The Applicants have done neither. Instead, the Applicants repeat their submissions made in the application for rescission. The Applicants’ submissions have been addressed in the judgment and there is no reason to revisit them.
5. The Applicants’ submissions do not satisfy the requirements of Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act for granting leave to appeal.
6. In the premises, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Order
7. In the premise, I make the following order:
7.1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
7.2 The Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s costs.
______
H M VALLY
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,JOHANNESBURG
Date of hearing: 24 January 2020
Date of judgment: 08 September 2020
APPEARANCES
For the Applicants
Instructed by: Legal Aid South Africa
For the Respondent
Instructed by: Hammond Pole Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.