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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the statutory threshold for reasonable prospects of success.
- 2 Whether there is any compelling reason for another court to hear the appeal.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
106 paragraphs
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case No.: 012167/2022
In the matter between:
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED APPLICANT
(Registration Number:[…])
And
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT
FIRST RESPONDENT
JOHANNESBURG
M.J.D. BREYTENBACH N.O.
SECOND RESPONDENT
K.C. MONYELA N.O.
THIRD RESPONDENT
R.F. LUTCHMAN N.O.
FOURTH RESPONDENT
(Second to Third respondents cited in their capacity as joint liquidators of Genflex (Pty)
Ltd (in liquidation) Registration Number:[…])
GENFLEX (PTY) LTD (in liquidation)
FIFTH RESPONDENT
Registration Number:[…])
SOUTH AFRICAN MERCANTILE
CORPORATION (PTY) LTD
SIXTH RESPONDENT
ALEXANDER FRASER & SON SA
(PTY) LTD
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
ALEXANDER FRASER & SON LTD
LONDON
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
PEECON PROPERTIES
NINTH RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN SECURITISATION
TENTH RESPONDENT
ZR PERTOLEUM MARKETING
(PTY) LTD
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
REDTREE CAPITAL (PTY) LTD
TWELFTH RESPONDENT
MIA GAS SUPPLIES (PTY) LTD
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT
AP MERRIC T/A ENTERPRISE 2000
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT
INTER AFRICA ENGINEERING
(PTY) LTD
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT
TEAM PLATING WORKS (PTY) LTD
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE
SERVICE
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT
RAS H.E.
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT
HODGKISS R.V.
NINTEENTH RESPONDENT
ARMITAGE C.
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT
BADENHORST J.J.
TWENTY-FIRST RESPONDENT
STEWART-ROSS-FITZALAN C.A. TWENTY-SECOND
RESPONDENT
MBATHA Z.C.
TWENTY-THIRD RESPONDENT
BONNIN C.N.
TWENTY-FOURTH RESPONDENT
ALBRECHT J.S.
TWENTY-FIFTH RESPONDENT
SWANEPOEL S.D.J.
TWENTY-SIXTH RESPONDENT
ABSA BANK LIMITED
TWENTY-SEVENTH RESPONDENT
THOMAS D.
TWENTY-EIGHTH
RESPONDENT
DELPORT S.J.
TWENTY-NINTH RESPONDENT
SZALEK R.
THIRTIETH RESPONDENT
HOLTZHAUSEN E.N.
THIRTY-FIRST RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
TWALA J
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal the judgment and order of this Court handed down on the 1st of September 2023, which granted the applicant the relief it sought in terms of the notice of motion.
[2] For the sake of convenience, in this judgment I will refer to the parties as they were referred to in the main judgment. As was the case in the main application, it is the fifth, sixth and seventh respondents who brought this application for leave to appeal.
[3] It is a trite principle of our law that leave to appeal may only be given where the Judge or Judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or where there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration. [1]
[4] The grounds for the leave to appeal are succinctly stated in the notice of application for leave to appeal and I do not intend to restate them in this judgment. Furthermore, I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to both counsel for the submissions made at the hearing of this application.
[5] I am of the view that I have considered all the issues raised in this application for leave to appeal in my judgment. I am therefore not persuaded that another Court may come to a different conclusion in this case. Put in another way, I am of the considered view that there are no reasonable prospects of success in this appeal. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal falls to be dismissed.
[6] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
TWALA M L
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION
Date of Hearing: 18th of March 2024
Date of Judgment: 22nd of March 2024
Appearances
For the Applicant: Advocate L Hollander
Instructed by: Jason Michael Smith Attorneys
Tel: 011 447 8188
kerry@jmsinc.com
For the Respondents: Adv. J Herschensohn
Instructed by:
Romanos Attorneys
Tel: 012 460 7660
office@romanos.co.za
[1] See section 17 (1)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.