Matjabeng Local Municipality v Factoring SPV (Pty) Ltd (4509/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 155 (14 September 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAFSHC 155
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C Reinders
- Case number
- 4509/2016
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- C Reinders
- Case number
- 4509/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that, after considering the papers, the judgment, the grounds for leave to appeal, and oral arguments, the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The orders previously granted were correct and accurately reflected the judgment. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Matjabeng Local Municipality
Applicant Counsel: Adv. W.J. EdelingFactoring SPV (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Adv. M.C. LouwAmounts and remedies
- Debt Repayment Amount: ZAR 20,064,000
- Interest Rate Per Annum: ZAR 15.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Orders Granted on 26 June 2017.
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the orders granted on 26 June 2017.
- 02
Whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the court erred in its previous judgment and that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The applicant submitted that the Debt Repayment Agreement and acknowledgement of debt should not have been made an order of court and challenged the quantum and interest awarded. The applicant also disputed the dismissal of the counterclaim and the costs order.
- Respondent
- The respondent contended that the judgment was correct and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The respondent argued that the Debt Repayment Agreement was validly made an order of court, the quantum and interest awarded were justified, and the dismissal of the counterclaim and costs order were appropriate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Standard practice; see S v Wells 1990 (1) SA 816 (A)
Court orders must accurately reflect the judgment delivered and any errors in the registrar's order must be clarified by the presiding judge.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that, after considering the papers, the judgment, the grounds for leave to appeal, and oral arguments, the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The orders previously granted were correct and accurately reflected the judgment. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court clarified that any discrepancies between the registrar's order and the judgment must be corrected to reflect the true intention of the court.
- The judge noted that the orders made on 26 June 2017 were clear and unambiguous as recorded in the judgment and court file.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case No: 4509/2016
In the application between:
MATJABENG
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY
Applicant
and
FACTORING SPV (PTY)
LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT BY: C REINDERS, J
HEARD ON: 7 SEPTEMBER 2017
DELIVERED ON: 14 SEPTEMBER 2017
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the orders granted by myself on 26 June 2017.
[2] The court order issued by the registrar differs from the orders that I made in that words had been omitted, presumably due to typing errors. For sake of clarity I need to record that the orders I made as encapsulated on the court file and judgment itself, were as follows:
1. The Debt Repayment Agreement and acknowledgement of debt between Maree Van Wyk Incorporated and the Respondent concluded on 26 March 2014 (and ceded to the Applicant), is made an order of Court.
2. Respondent is ordered to pay Applicant the amount of R 20 064 000,00 plus interest at the rate of 15,5% per annum from 17 July 2015 until date of payment in full.
3. Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
4. The counterclaim is dismissed with costs.
[3] Mr Edeling of the local bar appeared before me on behalf of the applicant at the hearing for leave and Mr Louw represented the respondent.
[4] Having studied the papers, my judgment, the grounds stated in the application for leave and listening to oral arguments before me, I am not convinced that leave should be granted herein.
[4] Accordingly the following order will issue:
The application is dismissed with costs.
______
C. REINDERS, J
On behalf of the applicant: Adv. W.J. Edeling
Instructed by:
Moroka Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of the respondent : Adv. M.C. Louw
Hill, McHardy & Herbst Inc.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.