Nonyane and Others v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank and Another (950/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 285 (25 July 2023)

Nonyane and Others v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank and Another (950/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 285 (25 July 2023)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already raised and addressed in the main applications. The impugned judgments had thoroughly dealt with all aspects raised, and no new or compelling grounds were presented to justify a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 285
Parties
Applicant: Koos Nonyane; Applicant: William Motiatsi; Applicant: Andries Motsi; Applicant: Eunice Nonyane; Respondent: First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank; Respondent: Pieter Willem Adriaan Rheeder
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 July 2023
Case Number
950/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Confirming Sequestration and Dismissal of Intervention.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N.S. Daniso
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Sequestration, Suretyship, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Sequestration Suretyship 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Koos Nonyane

Applicant

William Motiatsi

Applicant

Andries Motsi

Applicant

Eunice Nonyane

Applicant

First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank

Respondent

Pieter Willem Adriaan Rheeder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Confirming Sequestration and Dismissal of Intervention.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for an appeal against the judgments granting and confirming provisional sequestration and dismissing the intervention application.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds of appeal raise new issues or merely repeat arguments already considered by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were a repetition of arguments already raised and addressed in the main applications. The impugned judgments had thoroughly dealt with all aspects raised, and no new or compelling grounds were presented to justify a reasonable prospect of success on appeal. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to the full bench of this division or Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with costs.