Mokoena v Firstrand Bank Limited (35888/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 986 (30 September 2024)

Mokoena v Firstrand Bank Limited (35888/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 986 (30 September 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any sound rational basis for a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The arguments advanced were a repetition of those previously dismissed and did not engage with the detailed reasoning or authorities cited in the original judgment. The requirements for exceptio lis alibi pendens were not met, as the causes of action and subject matter were not identical. Public policy did not exempt the applicant from liability as surety, and the authorities relied upon were not applicable to the facts. The certificate of balance was not properly rebutted, and the principle of pacta sunt servanda did not assist the applicant, as the relevant...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 986
Parties
Applicant: Trevor Thabang Mokoena; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Ronald Mndeni Ndebele; Respondent: Nontlantla Portia Ndebele
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Case Number
35888/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on 26 April 2024
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
J J Meiring
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Suretyship Liability, Exceptio Lis Alibi Pendens, Public Policy, Certificate of Balance, Pacta Sunt Servanda
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Suretyship Liability Exceptio Lis Alibi Pendens Public Policy Certificate of Balance Pacta Sunt Servanda

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Thabang Mokoena

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Ronald Mndeni Ndebele

Respondent

Nontlantla Portia Ndebele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment on 26 April 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the order for payment as surety.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013 are satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the exceptio lis alibi pendens applies to parallel proceedings involving the principal debtor and surety.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any sound rational basis for a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. The arguments advanced were a repetition of those previously dismissed and did not engage with the detailed reasoning or authorities cited in the original judgment. The requirements for exceptio lis alibi pendens were not met, as the causes of action and subject matter were not identical. Public policy did not exempt the applicant from liability as surety, and the authorities relied upon were not applicable to the facts. The certificate of balance was not properly rebutted, and the principle of pacta sunt servanda did not assist the applicant, as the relevant...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant for leave will pay the respondent's costs, which may be taxed on the 'B' scale.