Standard Bank Nominees (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd and Others v Investec Bank Limited and Another (19269/2011) [2022] ZAGPPHC 28 (2 February 2022)

Standard Bank Nominees (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd and Others v Investec Bank Limited and Another (19269/2011) [2022] ZAGPPHC 28 (2 February 2022)

The court found that, after considering the comprehensive submissions of both parties, the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Standard Bank Nominees (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Shap Aron Nominees (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: BNS Nominees (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: William James Sebastian Bailey; Applicant: Lisa Duthie; Applicant: Trustees of the Garcia Revocable Family Trust; Applicant: Martine Mignon Guise; Applicant: Tania Hamilton; Applicant: Trustees of the Japonica Trust; Applicant: Mary Jane Hope Robertson; Applicant: David John Smyth; Applicant: Patrick Charles Smyth; Applicant: Anglorand Securities Limited; Applicant: Eljay Investments Inc; Applicant: Hentiq 1843 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Deborah Jane Palmer; Applicant: Raven Crest Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Gerard John Chappel; Applicant: Heloise Leona Menne; Applicant: Roger Peter Mundel; Applicant: Matthew Lee Steadman; Applicant: Allan Eric Thompson; Applicant: Nicholas Zehnder; Applicant: Stephen Richard Buckle; Applicant: Gary David Cahn t/a Pops Investments; Applicant: Elizabeth Catherina Chandler; Applicant: Murray Francis Chandler; Applicant: Mohamed Shiraz Gani; Applicant: The Trustees for the Time Being of the Gary Cahn Family Trust; Applicant: Douglas Gilfillan; Applicant: Mafumisa Investment Club; Applicant: The Executor Estate Late Adolf Marcel van der Striekt; Applicant: Ivo Carlo Zambetti; Respondent: Investec Bank Limited; Respondent: Randgold & Exploration Company Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
19269/2011
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.
Judges
A C Basson
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs in the Appeal
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs in the Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Bank Nominees (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Shap Aron Nominees (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

BNS Nominees (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

William James Sebastian Bailey

Applicant

Lisa Duthie

Applicant

Trustees of the Garcia Revocable Family Trust

Applicant

Martine Mignon Guise

Applicant

Tania Hamilton

Applicant

Trustees of the Japonica Trust

Applicant

Mary Jane Hope Robertson

Applicant

David John Smyth

Applicant

Patrick Charles Smyth

Applicant

Anglorand Securities Limited

Applicant

Eljay Investments Inc

Applicant

Hentiq 1843 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Deborah Jane Palmer

Applicant

Raven Crest Property Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Gerard John Chappel

Applicant

Heloise Leona Menne

Applicant

Roger Peter Mundel

Applicant

Matthew Lee Steadman

Applicant

Allan Eric Thompson

Applicant

Nicholas Zehnder

Applicant

Stephen Richard Buckle

Applicant

Gary David Cahn t/a Pops Investments

Applicant

Elizabeth Catherina Chandler

Applicant

Murray Francis Chandler

Applicant

Mohamed Shiraz Gani

Applicant

The Trustees for the Time Being of the Gary Cahn Family Trust

Applicant

Douglas Gilfillan

Applicant

Mafumisa Investment Club

Applicant

The Executor Estate Late Adolf Marcel van der Striekt

Applicant

Ivo Carlo Zambetti

Applicant

Investec Bank Limited

Respondent

Randgold & Exploration Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
  3. 3 Determination of costs for the application for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, after considering the comprehensive submissions of both parties, the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Accordingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. The costs of the application for leave to appeal will be costs in the appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. Costs of the application will be costs in the appeal.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
  • The costs of this application will be costs in the appeal.