Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Master of the High Court Johannesburg and Others (012167/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 305 (22 March 2024)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Master of the High Court Johannesburg and Others (012167/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 305 (22 March 2024)

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the main judgment. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there were reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 305
Parties
Applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Respondent: Master of the High Court Johannesburg; Respondent: M.J.D. Breytenbach N.O.; Respondent: K.C. Monyela N.O.; Respondent: R.F. Lutchman N.O.; Respondent: Genflex (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: South African Mercantile Corporation (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alexander Fraser & Son SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Alexander Fraser & Son Ltd London; Respondent: Peecon Properties; Respondent: South African Securitisation; Respondent: ZR Pertoleum Marketing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Redtree Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MIA Gas Supplies (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: AP Merric t/a Enterprise 2000; Respondent: Inter Africa Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Team Plating Works (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: South African Revenue Service; Respondent: RAS H.E.; Respondent: Hodgkiss R.V.; Respondent: Armitage C.; Respondent: Badenhorst J.J.; Respondent: Stewart-Ross-Fitzalan C.A.; Respondent: Mbatha Z.C.; Respondent: Bonnin C.N.; Respondent: Albrecht J.S.; Respondent: Swanepoel S.D.J.; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Thomas D.; Respondent: Delport S.J.; Respondent: Szalek R.; Respondent: Holtzhausen E.N.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
012167/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Relief to Applicant
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Prospects of Success, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Prospects of Success Costs Order

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 of South Africa Limited

Applicant

Master of the High Court Johannesburg

Respondent

M.J.D. Breytenbach N.O.

Respondent

K.C. Monyela N.O.

Respondent

R.F. Lutchman N.O.

Respondent

Genflex (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

South African Mercantile Corporation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alexander Fraser & Son SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Alexander Fraser & Son Ltd London

Respondent

Peecon Properties

Respondent

South African Securitisation

Respondent

ZR Pertoleum Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Redtree Capital (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

MIA Gas Supplies (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

AP Merric t/a Enterprise 2000

Respondent

Inter Africa Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Team Plating Works (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

South African Revenue Service

Respondent

RAS H.E.

Respondent

Hodgkiss R.V.

Respondent

Armitage C.

Respondent

Badenhorst J.J.

Respondent

Stewart-Ross-Fitzalan C.A.

Respondent

Mbatha Z.C.

Respondent

Bonnin C.N.

Respondent

Albrecht J.S.

Respondent

Swanepoel S.D.J.

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Thomas D.

Respondent

Delport S.J.

Respondent

Szalek R.

Respondent

Holtzhausen E.N.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Relief to Applicant

  1. 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success.
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for another court to hear the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order should be granted against the applicants for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all issues raised in the application for leave to appeal had already been considered in the main judgment. The judge was not persuaded that another court would reach a different conclusion or that there were reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal did not meet the statutory threshold and 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.