Nedbank Limited v Hintermair (71033/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 174 (10 March 2021)

Nedbank Limited v Hintermair (71033/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 174 (10 March 2021)

The court found that the respondent had no bona fide defence to the summary judgment claim and that the Rule 30 application was filed out of time and had lapsed. The respondent's answering affidavit to the condonation application constituted a further step, thereby forfeiting Rule 30 protection. The court exercised its discretion to deal with all applications together and found that granting leave to appeal would have no practical effect or result, as the respondent's lack of a bona fide defence remained unresolved regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The requirements for leave to appeal under Sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, and the application for leave to...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 174
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Glenda Merle Hintermair
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Case Number
71033/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment and Condonation Proceedings
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
TD Seneke
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Condonation, Uniform Rules of Court, Prospects of Success, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Summary Judgment Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Condonation Uniform Rules of Court Prospects of Success Leave to Appeal

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Glenda Merle Hintermair

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment and Condonation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to invoke Rule 30 to object to the applicant's late filing of the summary judgment application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's filing of an answering affidavit to the condonation application constituted a further step, thereby forfeiting Rule 30 protection.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's condonation for late filing of the summary judgment application should have been granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had no bona fide defence to the summary judgment claim and that the Rule 30 application was filed out of time and had lapsed. The respondent's answering affidavit to the condonation application constituted a further step, thereby forfeiting Rule 30 protection. The court exercised its discretion to deal with all applications together and found that granting leave to appeal would have no practical effect or result, as the respondent's lack of a bona fide defence remained unresolved regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The requirements for leave to appeal under Sections 16 and 17 of the Superior Courts Act were not met, and the application for leave to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.