Rakolota v First National Bank and Others (7896/2000) [2015] ZAGPPHC 425 (25 June 2015)

Rakolota v First National Bank and Others (7896/2000) [2015] ZAGPPHC 425 (25 June 2015)

The court found that, after considering the application and hearing both parties, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment or any grounds upon which another court would come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 425
Parties
Applicant: Tseding Winton Rakolota; Respondent: First National Bank; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, Benoni H; Respondent: Muriel Gugulethu Madela
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2015
Case Number
7896/2000
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.L. Phatudi
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success 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

Tseding Winton Rakolota

Applicant

First National Bank

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court, Benoni H

Respondent

Muriel Gugulethu Madela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under section 17(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after considering the application and hearing both parties, there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. The applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the judgment or any grounds upon which another court would come to a different conclusion. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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