Investec Bank Limited v Van heerden and Others (17890/2010) [2017] ZAGPPHC 348 (13 March 2017)

Investec Bank Limited v Van heerden and Others (17890/2010) [2017] ZAGPPHC 348 (13 March 2017)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the terms of the confession of judgment, specifically the requirement to give notice to the respondents' attorney of record. The evidence showed that Gerhard Botha & Partners Inc was the attorney of record at the relevant time, and there was no notice of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 348
Parties
Applicant: Investec Bank Limited; Respondent: Anthea Phoebe-Jane Van Heerden; Respondent: Zak Albertus Van Heerden; Respondent: Afrikings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: New Invest 263 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2017
Case Number
17890/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Judgment in Terms of Rule 31 Based on Confession of Judgment
Outcome
Application for judgment is not granted; matter postponed pending compliance with procedural requirements.
Judges
Khumalo
Legal Topics
Confession of Judgment, Rule 31 Procedure, Notice Requirements, Attorney of Record
Civil Procedure Confession of Judgment Rule 31 Procedure Notice Requirements Attorney of Record

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec Bank Limited

Applicant

Anthea Phoebe-Jane Van Heerden

Respondent

Zak Albertus Van Heerden

Respondent

Afrikings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

New Invest 263 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Judgment in Terms of Rule 31 Based on Confession of Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has complied with the procedural requirements for judgment based on confession under Rule 31.
  2. 2 Whether proper notice of the application for judgment was given to the respondents' attorney of record as required by the confession document.
  3. 3 Whether the attorney who witnessed the confession was properly appointed as attorney of record for the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the terms of the confession of judgment, specifically the requirement to give notice to the respondents' attorney of record. The evidence showed that Gerhard Botha & Partners Inc was the attorney of record at the relevant time, and there was no notice of withdrawal or appointment of Hills Incorporated. As a result, the application for judgment could not be considered until proper compliance with the procedural requirements was achieved.

Court Disposition

Application for judgment is not granted; matter postponed pending compliance with procedural requirements.

Orders

  • The application for judgment is not considered until there is compliance with the terms of the confession of judgment.