Muchenje and Another v Investec Bank Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17072/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 (28 September 2023)

Muchenje and Another v Investec Bank Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17072/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 (28 September 2023)

The court found that the issue of whether a further section 129(3) notice is required after judgment is not sufficiently novel to warrant leave to appeal, as there are no conflicting judgments and the matter has been addressed in previous case law. The applicant conceded that no conflicting judgments exist. Regarding reinstatement, the court held that payment was made for the benefit of the respondents and accepted by Investec, and that the Mostert case supports the respondents' position. Consequently, there are no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, and the application is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1212
Parties
Applicant: Lazarus Muchenje; Applicant: Janet Muchenje; Respondent: Investec Bank Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2023
Case Number
17072/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Skosana
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Section 129 Notice, Reinstatement of Agreement, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure National Credit Act Section 129 Notice Reinstatement of Agreement Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lazarus Muchenje

Applicant

Janet Muchenje

Applicant

Investec Bank Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a further cancellation notice in terms of section 129(3) of the National Credit Act was required after judgment.
  2. 2 Whether reinstatement of the home loan agreement is legally justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issue of whether a further section 129(3) notice is required after judgment is not sufficiently novel to warrant leave to appeal, as there are no conflicting judgments and the matter has been addressed in previous case law. The applicant conceded that no conflicting judgments exist. Regarding reinstatement, the court held that payment was made for the benefit of the respondents and accepted by Investec, and that the Mostert case supports the respondents' position. Consequently, there are no compelling reasons to grant leave to appeal, and the application is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.