Lindicento Proprietary Limited and Others v Lakeside City Trading 286 (Pty) Ltd (31459/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 506 (14 September 2020)

Lindicento Proprietary Limited and Others v Lakeside City Trading 286 (Pty) Ltd (31459/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 506 (14 September 2020)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the heightened threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The points in limine raised by the applicants, including disputes of fact, hearsay, prescription, and non-joinder, were either considered and dismissed or lacked merit. The court held that the original judgment correctly found the sale and transfer of the property to be fraudulent and set aside the transaction. The principles of ostensible authority and estoppel were not applicable in the circumstances, as the directors of the First...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 506
Parties
Applicant: Lindicento Proprietary Limited; Applicant: First Rand Bank Limited; Applicant: Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria; Applicant: Priscilla Mumsie Baby Samuels; Respondent: Lakeside City Trading 286 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
31459/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maumela
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Standard, Ostensible Authority, Fraudulent Transfer, Plaascon Evans Rule, Non Joinder, Prescription
Civil Procedure Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Standard Ostensible Authority Fraudulent Transfer Plaascon Evans Rule Non Joinder +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lindicento Proprietary Limited

Applicant

First Rand Bank Limited

Applicant

Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Applicant

Priscilla Mumsie Baby Samuels

Applicant

Lakeside City Trading 286 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the original judgment failed to address or rule on points in limine raised by the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the Plascon Evans rule was correctly applied in the presence of factual disputes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal did not meet the heightened threshold set by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion. The points in limine raised by the applicants, including disputes of fact, hearsay, prescription, and non-joinder, were either considered and dismissed or lacked merit. The court held that the original judgment correctly found the sale and transfer of the property to be fraudulent and set aside the transaction. The principles of ostensible authority and estoppel were not applicable in the circumstances, as the directors of the First...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.