Malao v Investec Bank Ltd and Others (Appeal) (A37/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 522 (28 May 2025)

Malao v Investec Bank Ltd and Others (Appeal) (A37/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 522 (28 May 2025)

The Full Court found that the appeal was hopelessly confusing, with unclear relief sought and procedural irregularities. The founding affidavit and notice of motion failed to clarify the orders under appeal or the parties involved. The attempt to postpone or transfer the matter was unsupported by clear grounds, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 522
Parties
Appellant: Kabelo Philemon Lucas Malao; Respondent: Investec Bank Ltd; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: The Sheriff, Sandton South; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2025
Case Number
A37/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing Before Full Court
Outcome
The matter is removed from the roll, costs reserved.
Judges
G C Wright, Hassim, Ledwaba
Legal Topics
Urgent Application, Costs Order, Condonation, Removal From Roll
Civil Procedure Urgent Application Costs Order Condonation Removal From Roll

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo Philemon Lucas Malao

Appellant

Investec Bank Ltd

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

The Sheriff, Sandton South

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Hearing Before Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be postponed or transferred to the Johannesburg High Court.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for any procedural irregularities.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be removed from the roll due to lack of clarity in the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court found that the appeal was hopelessly confusing, with unclear relief sought and procedural irregularities. The founding affidavit and notice of motion failed to clarify the orders under appeal or the parties involved. The attempt to postpone or transfer the matter was unsupported by clear grounds, and the unilateral removal from the roll was impermissible. In the interests of judicial economy and fairness, the matter was removed from the roll and the question of costs reserved.

Court Disposition

The matter is removed from the roll, costs reserved.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • Costs are reserved.