Micheal and Another v First Rand Bank Limited (2010/2498) [2021] ZAGPJHC 863 (14 July 2021)

Micheal and Another v First Rand Bank Limited (2010/2498) [2021] ZAGPJHC 863 (14 July 2021)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was filed more than a year late, with no reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to show good cause for condonation, as required by Uniform Rule 27 and established case law. On the merits, the prescription point was dismissed because the debt was secured by mortgage bonds, making the applicable prescription period thirty years. The arguments regarding statutory notices under the National Credit Act were found to be without merit, as the applicants did not dispute receipt of the section 86(10) notices at the relevant time, and the principles relating to section 129 notices were not applicable. The alleged...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 863
Parties
Applicant: Michael G; Applicant: Michael L.C; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2021
Case Number
2010/2498
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation Following Refusal of Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Both the condonation application and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
U. Bhoola
Legal Topics
Condonation, Rescission of Judgment, Prescription Act, National Credit Act, Default Judgment, Interest Rate Variation
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Condonation Rescission of Judgment Prescription Act National Credit Act Default Judgment Interest Rate Variation

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael G

Applicant

Michael L.C

Applicant

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation Following Refusal of Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have prospects of success in the appeal against the refusal of rescission of default judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's claim has prescribed under section 11 of the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was filed more than a year late, with no reasonable explanation for the delay. The applicants failed to show good cause for condonation, as required by Uniform Rule 27 and established case law. On the merits, the prescription point was dismissed because the debt was secured by mortgage bonds, making the applicable prescription period thirty years. The arguments regarding statutory notices under the National Credit Act were found to be without merit, as the applicants did not dispute receipt of the section 86(10) notices at the relevant time, and the principles relating to section 129 notices were not applicable. The alleged...

Court Disposition

Both the condonation application and the application for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The condonation application is dismissed.
  • The First and Second Applicants shall pay the costs of the condonation application on the scale as between attorney and client.