Sithole v Firstrand Bank Limited (82216/17) [2022] ZAGPPHC 656 (1 September 2022)

Sithole v Firstrand Bank Limited (82216/17) [2022] ZAGPPHC 656 (1 September 2022)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed more than three years out of time, with no condonation or good cause shown for the delay as required by Rule 49(1)(b). The applicant failed to file any opposing papers, provide evidence, or attend the hearing, and made dishonest and contrived allegations unsupported by the record. The court found the application to be a gross abuse of process, intended solely to delay the respondent's enforcement of its rights. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor any compelling reason advanced for the appeal to be heard. The reserve price was set based on the evidence provided by the respondent, and the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 656
Parties
Applicant: J. Sithole; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2022
Case Number
82216/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
C.P. Rabie
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rule 49 Application, Rule 46a Reserve Price, Default Judgment, Condonation, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Rule 49 Application Rule 46a Reserve Price Default Judgment Condonation Abuse of Process

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. Sithole

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal was timeously and properly brought in terms of Rule 49(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided sufficient grounds or condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal regarding the reserve price set under Rule 46A.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because it was filed more than three years out of time, with no condonation or good cause shown for the delay as required by Rule 49(1)(b). The applicant failed to file any opposing papers, provide evidence, or attend the hearing, and made dishonest and contrived allegations unsupported by the record. The court found the application to be a gross abuse of process, intended solely to delay the respondent's enforcement of its rights. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor any compelling reason advanced for the appeal to be heard. The reserve price was set based on the evidence provided by the respondent, and the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs which costs shall be on the scale as between attorney and client.