Mmusi v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (6626/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 841 (25 October 2022)
- Citation
- [2022] ZAGPPHC 841
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- K J Mogale
- Case number
- 6626/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- K J Mogale
- Case number
- 6626/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that it had erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal when the applicant failed to appear. The correct procedure in such circumstances is to strike the matter off the roll for non-appearance, rather than dismissing it. The court recalled its previous order under Rule 42(1)(a) and substituted it with an order striking the matter off the roll. The applicant was ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale and required to file substantial heads of argument for condonation within fifteen days before any further application for leave to appeal.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal struck off the roll for non-appearance; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The matter is struck off the roll for non-appearance.
- The applicant must file substantial heads of argument for condonation within fifteen days before filing for leave to appeal.
- The applicant is to pay the costs on an attorney and client scale.
02
Material facts
Parties
Mpho Abel Mmusi
ApplicantStandard Bank of South Africa Limited
Respondent Counsel: Z Schoeman03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal; Reconsideration of Prior Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed or struck off the roll due to the applicant's non-appearance.
- 02
Whether the court's previous order dismissing the application should be recalled under Rule 42(1)(a).
- 03
Whether costs should be awarded on an attorney and client scale.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant did not appear in court and did not submit any heads of argument or explanation for his absence. No arguments were presented on his behalf.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale due to the applicant's failure to appear and prosecute his application.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Rule 42(1)(a) Uniform Rules of Court
A court may recall or vary its own order under Rule 42(1)(a) if it was granted in error or in the absence of a party.
- 02
General principles of civil procedure
Where an applicant fails to appear or prosecute an application, the matter may be struck off the roll rather than dismissed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that it had erred in dismissing the application for leave to appeal when the applicant failed to appear. The correct procedure in such circumstances is to strike the matter off the roll for non-appearance, rather than dismissing it. The court recalled its previous order under Rule 42(1)(a) and substituted it with an order striking the matter off the roll. The applicant was ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale and required to file substantial heads of argument for condonation within fifteen days before any further application for leave to appeal.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of parties informing the court of their non-appearance to avoid unnecessary costs and procedural delays.
- The judgment was delivered electronically and is deemed handed down on the date indicated, in accordance with current practice.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal struck off the roll for non-appearance; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.
- The matter is struck off the roll for non-appearance.
- The applicant must file substantial heads of argument for condonation within fifteen days before filing for leave to appeal.
- The applicant is to pay the costs on an attorney and client scale.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 6626/2020
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED: NO
25 OCTOBER 2022
In the matter between:
MPHO
ABEL MMUSI
APPLICANT
and
THE
STANDARD BANK
OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MOGALE,
AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] On 25 October 2022, the applicant brought an application for Leave to Appeal an order granted on 02nd September 2021.
[2] The respondent appeared, but the applicant failed to appear in court. The applicant also failed to inform the court of his non-appearance.
[3] The respondent applied to this court for Leave to Appeal to be dismissed with costs, and such be on an attorney and client scale.
[4] On 25 October 2022, I handed down the order in terms of which I dismissed the application with costs.
[5] I find that I erred by dismissing the application for Leave to Appeal instead of striking off the application due to the non-appearance by the applicant
[6] In light of the above error, I hereby recall my order and invoke the provisions of Rule 42(1)(a) and make the following order:
I accordingly make the following order:
ORDER
1. The matter is struck off the roll for non-appearance.
2. The applicant has to file substantial heads of arguments for Condonation within fifteen (15) days after this order is granted before filing for Leave to Appeal.
3. The applicant is to pay the costs on an attorney and client scale.
K
J MOGALE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Electronically submitted.
Delivered: This Judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 25 October 2025.
Date of hearing: The matter was heard by way of video conferencing or otherwise; the matter may be determined accordingly. The matter was set down for a court date of 07 September 2021.
Date of the Order: 25 October 2022
Heard on: 25
October 2022
For the Applicants : No
Appearance
For the Respondent : Advocate
Z Schoeman
Date of the Order: 25
October 2022
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.