Mhlongo v Farraque and Others (43344/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 64 (15 February 2022)

Mhlongo v Farraque and Others (43344/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 64 (15 February 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant breached the duty of full disclosure in the ex parte urgent application, omitting material facts that should have been presented. The court exercised its discretion to allow the first respondent to file a further affidavit in response to new evidence introduced by the applicant in reply, as those facts were within the applicant's knowledge at the time of launching the application. The dispute of fact did not warrant referral to oral evidence, as the matter could be resolved on the papers. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Ntando Zwelihle Mhlongo; Respondent: Dula Edmen Farraque; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: First National Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
43344/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Ex Parte Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhapi V V
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Application, Urgent Interdict, Erroneous Payment, Dispute of Fact, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Ex Parte Application Urgent Interdict Erroneous Payment Dispute of Fact Leave to Appeal

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntando Zwelihle Mhlongo

Applicant

Dula Edmen Farraque

Respondent

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

First National Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Ex Parte Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has met the threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the court erred in accepting the first respondent's version regarding the Aston Martin transaction.
  3. 3 Whether the dispute of fact should have been referred to trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the raised threshold for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant breached the duty of full disclosure in the ex parte urgent application, omitting material facts that should have been presented. The court exercised its discretion to allow the first respondent to file a further affidavit in response to new evidence introduced by the applicant in reply, as those facts were within the applicant's knowledge at the time of launching the application. The dispute of fact did not warrant referral to oral evidence, as the matter could be resolved on the papers. The grounds advanced by the applicant did not...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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