Matemane v Nedbank Limited (20072/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 953 (1 November 2016)

Matemane v Nedbank Limited (20072/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 953 (1 November 2016)

The court applied the test under section 17(1) of the Supreme Courts Act and found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion on the factual findings. There was no compelling reason or substantial public importance identified that would justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 953
Parties
Applicant: Nikwane Vincent Matemane; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2016
Case Number
20072/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospect of Success, Supreme Courts Act Section 17
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success Supreme Courts Act Section 17

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nikwane Vincent Matemane

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard, including conflicting judgments.
  3. 3 Whether the decision sought on appeal disposes of all issues in the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the test under section 17(1) of the Supreme Courts Act and found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion on the factual findings. There was no compelling reason or substantial public importance identified that would justify granting leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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