Mantsho and Another v Hiroschowitz Flionis Attorneys (Leave to Appeal) (45098/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 755 (15 July 2024)

Mantsho and Another v Hiroschowitz Flionis Attorneys (Leave to Appeal) (45098/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 755 (15 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to raise any new issues in their grounds for leave to appeal that had not already been adjudicated in the original judgment. The explanations for default were not reasonable, and no bona fide defence with prospects of success was demonstrated. The argument regarding the certificate of security was dismissed as the certificate complied with statutory requirements, having been issued within the prescribed period and available at the hearing. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or interfere with the order made. Accordingly, the threshold for granting leave to appeal under...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 755
Parties
Applicant: Abram Sonti Mantsho; Applicant: Julia Mantsho; Respondent: Hirschowitz Flionis Attorneys
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Case Number
45098/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Ex Tempore Judgment and Reasons Delivered; Opposed and Argued at Hearing.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Trumpie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Costs Order, Sequestration Proceedings, Certificate of Security
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Costs Order Sequestration Proceedings Certificate of Security

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abram Sonti Mantsho

Applicant

Julia Mantsho

Applicant

Hirschowitz Flionis Attorneys

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Ex Tempore Judgment and Reasons Delivered; Opposed and Argued at Hearing.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal against the ex-tempore judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the sequestration order was erroneously granted due to an invalid or stale certificate of security.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have shown a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to raise any new issues in their grounds for leave to appeal that had not already been adjudicated in the original judgment. The explanations for default were not reasonable, and no bona fide defence with prospects of success was demonstrated. The argument regarding the certificate of security was dismissed as the certificate complied with statutory requirements, having been issued within the prescribed period and available at the hearing. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion or interfere with the order made. Accordingly, the threshold for granting leave to appeal under...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the respondent’s costs on a party-party scale, including costs of counsel on Scale B, in terms of Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court (as amended).