Rapitsi v Standard Bank and Others (2669/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 7 (19 March 2019)

Rapitsi v Standard Bank and Others (2669/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 7 (19 March 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for the granting of an interim interdict. The interim relief was originally granted on the mistaken belief that R1,000,000.00 had already been paid into the sixth respondent's account, but evidence showed no such payment had occurred. The applicant did not amend her notice of motion to address money still to be paid, nor did she join the Fund, which was still in the process of effecting payment. The applicant failed to disclose all material facts, particularly that the Fund had not yet paid the sixth respondent, which was fatal to her application. Furthermore, the applicant did not adequately address the balance of...

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Salome Nnana Rapitsi; Respondent: Standard Bank; Respondent: First National Bank; Respondent: ABSA Bank; Respondent: Nedbank; Respondent: Capitec; Respondent: Mosina Christina Malope
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2019
Case Number
2669/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Discharge of Interim Relief and Final Determination of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; interim order discharged.
Judges
Kganyago
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Prima Facie Right, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Harm, Alternative Remedy
Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Prima Facie Right Balance of Convenience Irreparable Harm Alternative Remedy

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salome Nnana Rapitsi

Applicant

Standard Bank

Respondent

First National Bank

Respondent

ABSA Bank

Respondent

Nedbank

Respondent

Capitec

Respondent

Mosina Christina Malope

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Discharge of Interim Relief and Final Determination of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for the granting of an interim interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the interim relief was properly obtained based on full disclosure of facts.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had an alternative remedy available.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for the granting of an interim interdict. The interim relief was originally granted on the mistaken belief that R1,000,000.00 had already been paid into the sixth respondent's account, but evidence showed no such payment had occurred. The applicant did not amend her notice of motion to address money still to be paid, nor did she join the Fund, which was still in the process of effecting payment. The applicant failed to disclose all material facts, particularly that the Fund had not yet paid the sixth respondent, which was fatal to her application. Furthermore, the applicant did not adequately address the balance of...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed with costs; interim order discharged.

Orders

  • The interim relief granted on 2 May 2018 is discharged.
  • The application for interim relief is dismissed with costs.