Tayob N.O and Another v Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 312; 61684/21 (10 May 2023)

Tayob N.O and Another v Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 312; 61684/21 (10 May 2023)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge held that the particulars of claim did not disclose a valid cause of action without setting aside the relevant regulations or policy. The arguments regarding contradictions in the main judgment were found to be without merit, as the findings were adequately addressed in the judgment. The statutory test under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act was applied, and the court was not satisfied that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 312
Parties
Applicant: Rehana Surtie Tayob N.O.; Applicant: Edward Jeffrey Koorbanally; Respondent: Public Investment Corporation (PIC); Respondent: ABSA Group Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2023
Case Number
61684/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Upholding Exception
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the plaintiffs.
Judges
Ndlokovane
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal Test, Exception Procedure, Statutory Interpretation, Foreign Creditor Claims
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Leave to Appeal Test Exception Procedure Statutory Interpretation Foreign Creditor Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rehana Surtie Tayob N.O.

Applicant

Edward Jeffrey Koorbanally

Applicant

Public Investment Corporation (PIC)

Respondent

ABSA Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Upholding Exception

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the judgment upholding the exception.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclose a valid cause of action without setting aside the relevant regulations or policy.
  3. 3 Whether the contradictions alleged in paragraphs 68 and 70 of the main judgment affect the cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The judge held that the particulars of claim did not disclose a valid cause of action without setting aside the relevant regulations or policy. The arguments regarding contradictions in the main judgment were found to be without merit, as the findings were adequately addressed in the judgment. The statutory test under Section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act was applied, and the court was not satisfied that another court would reach a different conclusion. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; costs awarded against the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The plaintiffs are to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal.