Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O. and Others (55503/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 823 (29 September 2014)

Grindrod Bank Limited v Torode N.O. and Others (55503/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 823 (29 September 2014)

The court found that sufficient cause was shown for the late filing of the cross-appeal and that the interests of justice warranted condonation. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that there were reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, leave to appeal and the cross-appeal as supplemented were granted to the full court of the division. Costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 823
Parties
Plaintiff: Grindrod Bank Limited; Defendant: Jeremy Arthur Torode N.O.; Defendant: Carol-Ann Torode N.O.; Defendant: Dee-Bronwyn Bezuidenhout N.O.; Defendant: Jeremy Arthur Torode
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2014
Case Number
55503/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; condonation for late filing of cross-appeal granted; costs to be costs in the appeal.
Judges
A.M.L. Phatudi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Costs in Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Costs in Appeal

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

Grindrod Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Jeremy Arthur Torode N.O.

Defendant

Carol-Ann Torode N.O.

Defendant

Dee-Bronwyn Bezuidenhout N.O.

Defendant

Jeremy Arthur Torode

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the cross-appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal and cross-appeal should be granted to the full court.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that sufficient cause was shown for the late filing of the cross-appeal and that the interests of justice warranted condonation. Furthermore, the court was satisfied that there were reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion on the merits of the case. Accordingly, leave to appeal and the cross-appeal as supplemented were granted to the full court of the division. Costs were ordered to be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal granted; condonation for late filing of cross-appeal granted; costs to be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the cross-appeal as supplemented.
  • Leave to appeal and the cross-appeal as supplemented is granted to the full court of this division.