Gopane and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (49663/2009) [2020] ZAGPJHC 321 (8 September 2020)

Gopane and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (49663/2009) [2020] ZAGPJHC 321 (8 September 2020)

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.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 321
Parties
Applicant: Gopane, Mogapi George; Applicant: Gopane, Veronica Thandekile; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2020
Case Number
49663/2009
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
H M Vally
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Section 129 National Credit Act, Service of Summons, Debt Settlement, Constitutional Validity of Executable Orders
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Section 129 National Credit Act Service of Summons Debt Settlement Constitutional Validity of Executable Orders

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gopane, Mogapi George

Applicant

Gopane, Veronica Thandekile

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent complied with Section 129(1) of the National Credit Act.
  2. 2 Whether the summons was properly served on the Applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants had settled their indebtedness to the Respondent at the time judgment was granted.

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.

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.