Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021-27241) [2024] ZAGPJHC 216 (4 March 2024)

Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021-27241) [2024] ZAGPJHC 216 (4 March 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to raise any cogent substantive grounds demonstrating that the judgment was incorrect in fact or law. The application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal must be refused.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 216
Parties
Applicant: Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Justice Kudumela N.O.; Respondent: ABSA Bank Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2024
Case Number
2021-27241
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Vally
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Misdirection, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Misdirection 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gravitate Multi Video Content (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Justice Kudumela N.O.

Applicant

ABSA Bank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion on the facts and law.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged misdirections in the judgment warrant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have raised cogent substantive grounds for appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to raise any cogent substantive grounds demonstrating that the judgment was incorrect in fact or law. The application for leave to appeal merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected in the main judgment. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would come to a different conclusion, and therefore, leave to appeal must be refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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