Mothuloe v Standard Bank (21345-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 225 (16 January 2024)

Mothuloe v Standard Bank (21345-2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 225 (16 January 2024)

The application for leave to appeal was delivered substantially out of time, with no application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The applicant's repeated requests for postponement, made at the last minute, were found to be unsatisfactory and bordering on contempt of court. The grounds for leave to appeal were considered and found to lack merit, as they merely challenged each paragraph of the sequestration judgment without substantive argument. The court refused the postponement and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Costs were awarded on an attorney and own client scale in accordance with the parties' loan agreement.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 225
Parties
Applicant: W Mothuloe; Respondent: Standard Bank
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 January 2024
Case Number
21345/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Sequestration Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Kemack
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Sequestration, Condonation, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Sequestration Condonation Costs Order

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

Parties

W Mothuloe

Applicant

Standard Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Sequestration Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be entertained despite being delivered out of time without condonation.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has prospects of success on appeal.
  3. 3 Whether a postponement of the hearing should be granted due to counsel's unavailability.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was delivered substantially out of time, with no application for condonation or explanation for the delay. The applicant's repeated requests for postponement, made at the last minute, were found to be unsatisfactory and bordering on contempt of court. The grounds for leave to appeal were considered and found to lack merit, as they merely challenged each paragraph of the sequestration judgment without substantive argument. The court refused the postponement and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Costs were awarded on an attorney and own client scale in accordance with the parties' loan agreement.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The matter is not postponed as requested by the applicant for leave to appeal.
  • The application for leave to appeal the judgment and order handed down on 19 December 2022 is dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale, which costs shall be costs in the sequestration of the respondent's estate.