Speelman and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others (4120/2016) [2017] ZAECGHC 136 (7 September 2017)
- Citation
- [2017] ZAECGHC 136
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- G H Bloem
- Case number
- 4120/2016
More details
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
- Panel
- G H Bloem
- Case number
- 4120/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that none of the fifteen grounds of appeal raised by the applicant had merit and that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge considered all grounds advanced and concluded that granting leave to appeal would serve no purpose, as the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the dismissal of her rescission and condonation applications. 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 is dismissed with costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Noxolo Faniswa Speelman
Applicant Counsel: Adv Z B NcaloNoxolo Faniswa Speelman N.O
Applicant Counsel: Adv Z B NcaloAbsa Bank Limited
Respondent Counsel: Adv C van der MerweMichael James Freegard
Respondent Counsel: Adv K L WattMaster of the High Court, Bisho
RespondentThe Sheriff King Williams Town
RespondentRegistrar of Deeds, Eastern Cape
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Principal Judgment Debt: ZAR 948,647.8
- Additional Judgment Debt: ZAR 35,389.17
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission and Condonation Applications
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of her rescission and condonation applications.
- 02
Whether any of the fifteen grounds of appeal raised by the applicant have merit.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that the court erred in dismissing her applications for rescission of judgment and condonation for late filing. She relied on fifteen grounds of appeal, asserting that the order granted against her was unjust and that she should be afforded an opportunity to present her case.
- Respondent
- The first respondent argued that the grounds of appeal lacked merit and that the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonable prospects of success. The respondent maintained that the original judgment and the dismissal of the rescission and condonation applications were correct in law and fact.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 2013
Leave to appeal should only be granted where there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
- 02
Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court
An application for rescission of judgment must show sufficient cause and be brought within a reasonable time, failing which condonation must be sought and justified.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that none of the fifteen grounds of appeal raised by the applicant had merit and that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge considered all grounds advanced and concluded that granting leave to appeal would serve no purpose, as the applicant failed to demonstrate any error in the dismissal of her rescission and condonation applications. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that repeating the reasons for the original judgment would be unnecessary, as the grounds for appeal did not raise any new or substantial issues.
- The judge emphasized the importance of finality in litigation and the need to avoid unnecessary appeals where no reasonable prospects exist.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Source and reliance status
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
EASTERN CAPE DIVISION,
GRAHAMSTOWN
CASE NO. 4120/2016
In the matter between:
NOXOLO FANISWA
SPEELMAN
First Applicant
NOXOLO FANISWA SPEELMAN N.O
Second Applicant
and
ABSA
BANK
LIMITED
First Respondent
MICHAEL
JAMES
FREEGARD
Second Respondent
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
BISHO
Third Respondent
THE
SHERIFF KING WILLIAMS
TOWN
Fourth Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, EASTERN CAPE
Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE
TO APPEAL
Bloem J.
[1] On 26 February 2015 I granted an order in favour of the first respondent against the applicant, in her personal and representative capacities, for payment of the sums of R948 647.80 and R35 389.17, interest thereon and costs of suit. I also declared a certain immovable property specially executable and authorised and directed the sheriff, in terms of section 30 of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965 (Act No. 66 of 1965), to sell the immovable property.
[2] On 18 August 2016 the applicant launched an application for the rescission of the above order. She also made an application for condonation of the late filing of the application for the rescission of the above order. On 11 July 2017 I dismissed both applications with costs. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the dismissal of those applications.
[3] In her application for leave to appeal the applicant relied on fifteen grounds of appeal. It will serve no purpose to deal with each one of them because, to do so, I would be repeating the reasons for the judgment against which leave to appeal is sought. I have considered all those grounds and am of the opinion that an appeal would have no reasonable prospects of success because none of the grounds relied upon by the applicant has merit.
[4] In the result, the application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
_____
G
H BLOEM
Judge of the High Court
For the applicant:
Adv Z B Ncalo, instructed by Mili Attorneys, Grahamstown
For the first respondent:
Adv C van der Merwe, instructed by Netteltons, Grahamstown
For the second respondent: Adv K L Watt, instructed by Netteltons, Grahamstown
Date of hearing:
5 September 2017
Date of delivery of the judgment: 7 September 2017
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.