Khoza v First Rand Bank Limited: In re: First Rand Bank Limited v Khoza (21311/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 797 (12 October 2022)

Khoza v First Rand Bank Limited: In re: First Rand Bank Limited v Khoza (21311/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 797 (12 October 2022)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal had not been prosecuted for an extended period and did not set out any grounds for appeal, failing to comply with rule 49 of the rules of court. The absence of any attempt by the applicant to advance the application for nearly three years, coupled with the lack of substantive grounds, rendered the application fatally defective. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with procedural rules. The court further held that it was appropriate for the applicant to bear the costs of the application.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 797
Parties
Applicant: Given Khoza; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited; Plaintiff: First Rand Bank Limited; Defendant: Given Khoza
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Case Number
21311/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Unopposed Motion Court Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with rule 49. Costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Sutherland DJP
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Non Prosecution of Appeal, Costs Order, Rule 49 Compliance
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Non Prosecution of Appeal Costs Order Rule 49 Compliance

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Given Khoza

Applicant

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

First Rand Bank Limited

Plaintiff

Given Khoza

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Unopposed Motion Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal complies with rule 49 of the rules of court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should be ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal had not been prosecuted for an extended period and did not set out any grounds for appeal, failing to comply with rule 49 of the rules of court. The absence of any attempt by the applicant to advance the application for nearly three years, coupled with the lack of substantive grounds, rendered the application fatally defective. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with procedural rules. The court further held that it was appropriate for the applicant to bear the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and non-compliance with rule 49. Costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant, Mr Khoza, is ordered to pay the costs of this application.