Rahme and Another v The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited In re: The Standard Bank of South Africa v Rahme and Another (2017/46904) [2021] ZAGPJHC 401 (6 September 2021)

Rahme and Another v The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited In re: The Standard Bank of South Africa v Rahme and Another (2017/46904) [2021] ZAGPJHC 401 (6 September 2021)

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was filed significantly out of time and was not accompanied by an application for condonation or any explanation for the delay. The applicants' representative was unable to provide details of her instructing attorneys or reasons for the procedural defects. The court held that, in the absence of compliance with Uniform Rule 49 and without condonation, the application could not be entertained. The defects in representation and procedure further undermined the application. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs to be borne by the applicants.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 401
Parties
Applicant: Terence Michale Rahme; Applicant: Kristin Adele Rahme; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2021
Case Number
2017/46904
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Siwendu
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Summary Judgment, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Condonation Summary Judgment 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Michale Rahme

Applicant

Kristin Adele Rahme

Applicant

The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was brought within the prescribed time period under Uniform Rule 49.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided sufficient explanation or application for condonation for the late filing.
  3. 3 Whether the defects in representation and procedure affect the merits of the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for leave to appeal was filed significantly out of time and was not accompanied by an application for condonation or any explanation for the delay. The applicants' representative was unable to provide details of her instructing attorneys or reasons for the procedural defects. The court held that, in the absence of compliance with Uniform Rule 49 and without condonation, the application could not be entertained. The defects in representation and procedure further undermined the application. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs to be borne by the applicants.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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