Tulsamix (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (70123/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 878 (20 June 2018)

Tulsamix (Pty) Ltd and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (70123/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 878 (20 June 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any explanation for the six-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The papers before the court had previously made out a sufficient case for the order granted against the applicants. The court was of the view that the application for leave to appeal was brought merely to delay execution of the order and that there was no merit in granting leave. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 878
Parties
Applicant: Tulsamix (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Anthoula De Villiers; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2018
Case Number
70123/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Relief to Plaintiff; Application Heard and Dismissed.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
C M Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Delay in Application, Unopposed Court Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Delay in Application Unopposed Court Order

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tulsamix (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Anthoula De Villiers

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Relief to Plaintiff; Application Heard and Dismissed.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal has merit.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct amounts to an attempt to delay execution of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any explanation for the six-month delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. The papers before the court had previously made out a sufficient case for the order granted against the applicants. The court was of the view that the application for leave to appeal was brought merely to delay execution of the order and that there was no merit in granting leave. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.