Le Roux and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others; Le Roux and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others; In re: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Plaston Boerdery CC (36381/2011; 67261/2009) [2015] ZAGPJHC 224 (16 September 2015)

Le Roux and Others v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others; Le Roux and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others; In re: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Plaston Boerdery CC (36381/2011; 67261/2009) [2015] ZAGPJHC 224 (16 September 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any bona fide defence to the summary judgment, nor did they comply with the procedural requirements for rescission under Rule 31(2)(b). Their conduct was dilatory, obstructive, and amounted to an abuse of process, with repeated unsuccessful appeals and applications. The application for leave to appeal the liquidation order was devoid of merit and legally unfounded. The applicants' attorney, Mr Benn, flagrantly disregarded court directives, failed to file proper heads of argument, and ignored correspondence, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis propriis. The applications were dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale,...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 224
Parties
Applicant: Johan Francois Le Roux; Applicant: Pieter Daniel Le Roux; Applicant: JPP Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Delkop Boerdery Beleggings CC; Applicant: K'Shani Private Game Reserve (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd; Respondent: Michael Lawrence Stuart N.O.; Respondent: Marguerite Roux N.O.; Respondent: Petrus Jacobus Corne van Staden N.O.; Respondent: Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela NO.; Respondent: Jerry Seketa Koka N.O.; Respondent: Enver Mohamed Motala N.O.; Respondent: Plaston Boerdery CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2015
Case Number
36381/2011; 67261/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Two Consolidated Applications: Rescission and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Both applications are dismissed with punitive costs orders.
Judges
Jansen
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Summary Judgment, Suretyship Liability, Liquidation Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Summary Judgment Suretyship Liability Liquidation Proceedings Abuse of Process Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Francois Le Roux

Applicant

Pieter Daniel Le Roux

Applicant

JPP Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Delkop Boerdery Beleggings CC

Applicant

K'Shani Private Game Reserve (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

Respondent

Michael Lawrence Stuart N.O.

Respondent

Marguerite Roux N.O.

Respondent

Petrus Jacobus Corne van Staden N.O.

Respondent

Khashane La Mmapowana Manamela NO.

Respondent

Jerry Seketa Koka N.O.

Respondent

Enver Mohamed Motala N.O.

Respondent

Plaston Boerdery CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Two Consolidated Applications: Rescission and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for rescission of the summary judgment granted against them.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to appeal the liquidation order granted by Poswa J.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicants and their attorney warrants a punitive costs order, including costs de bonis propriis.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any bona fide defence to the summary judgment, nor did they comply with the procedural requirements for rescission under Rule 31(2)(b). Their conduct was dilatory, obstructive, and amounted to an abuse of process, with repeated unsuccessful appeals and applications. The application for leave to appeal the liquidation order was devoid of merit and legally unfounded. The applicants' attorney, Mr Benn, flagrantly disregarded court directives, failed to file proper heads of argument, and ignored correspondence, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis propriis. The applications were dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale,...

Court Disposition

Both applications are dismissed with punitive costs orders.

Orders

  • The two applications are dismissed.
  • Mr Benn of Louis Benn Attorneys is ordered to pay the costs of the two hearing days de bonis propriis on an attorney and client scale, as well as the costs incurred in drafting heads of argument setting out the background correspondence, on the same punitive scale.