Moleko and Another v Firstrand bank Limited (70681/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 274 (29 June 2020)

Moleko and Another v Firstrand bank Limited (70681/16) [2020] ZAGPPHC 274 (29 June 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to file a condonation application for the late submission of their application for leave to appeal, which is a procedural requirement. Additionally, the applicants did not file written heads of argument nor attend the virtual hearing, despite being notified. The respondent's submissions were accepted, and the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 274
Parties
Applicant: M.M. Moleko; Applicant: E.M. Moleko; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Case Number
70681/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
C.J. Collis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Condonation Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.M. Moleko

Applicant

E.M. Moleko

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to leave to appeal the judgment handed down on 21 August 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to file a condonation application for the late filing of the leave to appeal application is fatal to the application.
  3. 3 Whether there exists a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to file a condonation application for the late submission of their application for leave to appeal, which is a procedural requirement. Additionally, the applicants did not file written heads of argument nor attend the virtual hearing, despite being notified. The respondent's submissions were accepted, and the court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal the order dated 21 August 2017 is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.