National Credit Regulator v Nedbank Limited and Others (19638/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 53 (7 July 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAGPPHC 53
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- B.R. du Plessis
- Case number
- 19638/2008
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- B.R. du Plessis
- Case number
- 19638/2008
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the question raised by prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion is both novel and of considerable importance. Given these circumstances, the court held that the matter merits the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and that there is a reasonable possibility that the appellate court may reach a different conclusion regarding the order sought. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
Orders
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against this court's refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
- The costs of this application are reserved for determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
02
Material facts
Parties
The National Credit Regulator
Applicant Counsel: Mothle Jooma Sabdia Inc.Nedbank Limited
Respondent Counsel: Werksmans Inc.Firstrand Bank Limited
Respondent Counsel: Van Hulsteyns AttorneysStandard Bank of South Africa Limited
Respondent Counsel: Werksmans Inc.ABSA Bank Limited
Respondent Counsel: Jay Motohbi Inc.The Credit Providers' Association
Respondent Counsel: Routledge ModisaThe Furniture Traders Association
Respondent Counsel: Routledge ModisaRetail Motor Industry Association
Respondent Counsel: Werksmans Inc.The Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Respondent Counsel: The State AttorneyThe Minister of Trade and Industry
Respondent Counsel: The State AttorneyThe Debt Counsellors Association of South Africa
RespondentOnecor (Pty) Ltd
Respondent Counsel: Coombe & AssociatesJoahn Erik Juselius
Respondent Counsel: Booysens & CO Inc.03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Order in Terms of Prayer 1.13
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
- 02
Whether the matter is of sufficient importance and novelty to merit the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the question raised by prayer 1.13 is novel and of considerable importance, warranting the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that there are reasonable prospects that the appellate court may reach a different conclusion regarding the order sought.
- Respondent
- The respondents opposed the application for leave to appeal, maintaining that the court's refusal to grant the order in terms of prayer 1.13 was correct and that no compelling grounds exist for the matter to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal should be granted where the matter is of sufficient importance and novelty, and where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the question raised by prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion is both novel and of considerable importance. Given these circumstances, the court held that the matter merits the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal and that there is a reasonable possibility that the appellate court may reach a different conclusion regarding the order sought. Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted.
Obiter and limits
- The costs of the application for leave to appeal are reserved for determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
- The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against this court's refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
- The costs of this application are reserved for determination by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
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
(NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA)
Case No: 19638/2008
Date heard: 07/07/2010
Date of judgment: 07/07/2010
In the matter between:
THE NATIONAL CREDIT REGULATOR Applicant
and
NEDBANK LIMITED First Respondent
FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Second Respondent
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED Third Respondent
ABSA BANK LIMITED Fourth Respondent
THE CREDIT PROVIDERS' ASSOCIATION Fifth Respondent
THE FURNITURE TRADERS ASSOCIATION Sixth Respondent
RETAIL MOTOR INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Seventh
THE
MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND
CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Eighth Respondent
THE MINISTER OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY Ninth Respondent
THE
DEBT COUNSELLORS ASSOCIATION
OF SOUTH AFRICA Tenth Respondent
ONECOR (PTY) LTD Eleventh Respondent
JOAHN ERIK JUSELIUS Twelfth Respondent
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J:
This is an application for leave to appeal against this court's refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
The question that this prayer raises is of considerable importance and novel. In the circumstances the matter in my view not only merits the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal but that court may reasonably come to a conclusion that an order in those terms should have been granted.
The following order is made:
1. The applicant (The National Credit Regulator) is granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against this court's refusal to grant an order in terms of prayer 1.13 of the notice of motion.
2. The costs of this application are reserved for determination by the Supreme Court of appeal.
B.R. du Plessis
Judge of the High Court
On behalf of the Applicant: Mothle Jooma Sabdia Inc.
1st Floor, West Wing
Duncan Manor
Cnr. Duncan & Brooks Street
BROOKLYN
PRETORIA
P.O. Box 11147 Hatfield 0028
On behalf of the First to Sixth
Respondents: Werksmans Inc.
C/O Edelstein Bosman
220 Lange Street
Nieuw Muckleneuck
On behalf of the
Second Respondents: Van Hulsteyns Attorneys
C/O Savage Jooste and Adams
141 Boshoff Street
Nieuw Mucklenuek
Fourth Respondent: Jay Motohbi Inc.
C/O Savage Jooste and Adams C/O Savage Jooste and Adams
On behalf of the Fifth and
Sixth Respondent: Routledge Modisa
C/O Adams & Adams
1140 Prospect Street Hatfield
Pretoria
On behalf of the Eighth and
Ninth Respondents: The State Attorney
8th Floor, Bothongo Heights 167 Andries Street
Eleventh Respondent: Coombe & Associates
Cnr. Watloo & Flamink Streets
Silverton
Twelfth Respondent: Booysens & CO Inc.
C/O Velile Tinto & Assoc. Inc Tinto House
Cnr. Hans Strijdom & Disselboom
Wapadrand
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.