Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (122825/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 57 (29 January 2024)

Tlhabanyane v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (122825/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 57 (29 January 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a rational or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing his plea, as the impact of COVID-19 did not account for the entire period of default and the applicant did not substantiate claims of ineffective legal representation. The court held that Rule 27 is constitutionally valid and necessary for the orderly conduct of litigation, and the applicant did not present a substantive constitutional challenge. The applicant's approach to costs was unsupported, and the court exercised its discretion correctly. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, and leave to appeal was...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 57
Parties
Applicant: Itumeleng Tlhabanyane; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2024
Case Number
122825/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Application to Uplift Bar Under Rule 27.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Notice of Bar, Rule 27 Application, Default Judgment, Good Cause, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Notice of Bar Rule 27 Application Default Judgment Good Cause Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Itumeleng Tlhabanyane

Applicant

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Application to Uplift Bar Under Rule 27.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the late filing of a plea and for uplifting the bar under Rule 27.
  2. 2 Whether the impact of COVID-19 and ineffective legal representation constitute sufficient grounds for delay.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's right of access to courts was infringed by the application of Rule 27.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a rational or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing his plea, as the impact of COVID-19 did not account for the entire period of default and the applicant did not substantiate claims of ineffective legal representation. The court held that Rule 27 is constitutionally valid and necessary for the orderly conduct of litigation, and the applicant did not present a substantive constitutional challenge. The applicant's approach to costs was unsupported, and the court exercised its discretion correctly. Consequently, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion, and leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs.