Huntrex 302 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Investec Bank Ltd and Others (D3036/2021) [2021] ZAKZDHC 37 (17 August 2021)
- Citation
- [2021] ZAKZDHC 37
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
- Panel
- Ploos van Amstel
- Case number
- D3036/2021
More details
- Court
- Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
- Panel
- Ploos van Amstel
- Case number
- D3036/2021
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success in their proposed appeal. There were no compelling reasons presented that would justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court further ordered that costs be awarded against the applicants, including those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
02
Material facts
Parties
Huntrex 302 (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: T Giyapersad IncorporatedPersonify Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: T Giyapersad IncorporatedMisty Blue Investments (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: T Giyapersad IncorporatedInvestec Bank Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Johnston and PartnersThe Sheriff of the High Court, Inanda Area 2
RespondentThe Sheriff of the High Court, Durban Coastal
RespondentIan Wyles Auctioneers
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the previous judgment.
- 02
Whether the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success.
- 03
Whether there are compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
- 04
Whether costs should include those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought leave to appeal the previous judgment, contending that there were reasonable prospects of success and that the matter warranted further consideration by an appellate court.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal, arguing that the grounds advanced did not raise reasonable prospects of success and that there were no compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success in their proposed appeal. There were no compelling reasons presented that would justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court further ordered that costs be awarded against the applicants, including those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel.
Source and reliance status
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
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.
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN
CASE NO: D3036/2021
In the matter between:
HUNTREX 302 (PTY) LTD First
Applicant
PERSONIFY
INVESTMENTS (PTY) Second
Applicant
MISTY BLUE INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Third
Applicant
and
INVESTEC
BANK LTD First
Respondent
THE
SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT, Second
Respondent
INANDA AREA 2
THE
SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT Third
Respondent
DURBAN COASTAL
IAN
WYLES AUCTIONEERS Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
Delivered on: 17 August 2021
Ploos van Amstel J
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of senior counsel, on the grounds that I am not of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success, nor is there any compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
Appearances:
For the Applicant
Instructed by: T Giyapersad Incorporated
Durban
For the Respondent
Instructed by: Johnston and Partners
By agreement between the parties this matter was dealt with on the papers, without oral argument. The order was delivered by electronic
transmission to the parties’ attorneys on the 17 August 2021, and by placing it in the court file.
Date of Judgment for application for leave to appeal: 17 August 2021
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.