Sasfin Bank Ltd and Another vs Melamed and Hurwitz Incorporated and Anothers (31948/19) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1039 (21 November 2022)

Sasfin Bank Ltd and Another vs Melamed and Hurwitz Incorporated and Anothers (31948/19) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1039 (21 November 2022)

The court found that the Second Applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, particularly regarding the refusal of condonation for the late rescission application. The deficiencies alleged in the suretyship agreement did not amount to a bona fide defense sufficient to warrant rescission. The standard for granting condonation is stringent, and the Second Applicant did not meet the requirements. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1039
Parties
Respondent: Sasfin Bank Ltd; Respondent: Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Melamed and Hurwitz Incorporated; Applicant: Stephen Melamed
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2022
Case Number
31948/19
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Rescission
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Todd
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Leave to Appeal, Condonation, Rule 31 2 B, Suretyship Defense
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Leave to Appeal Condonation Rule 31 2 B Suretyship Defense

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sasfin Bank Ltd

Respondent

Sunlyn (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Melamed and Hurwitz Incorporated

Applicant

Stephen Melamed

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Refusal of Rescission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the refusal of rescission under Rule 31(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the rescission application should have been granted.
  3. 3 Whether the Second Applicant demonstrated good cause, including a bona fide defense, as required by Rule 31(2)(b).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Second Applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal, particularly regarding the refusal of condonation for the late rescission application. The deficiencies alleged in the suretyship agreement did not amount to a bona fide defense sufficient to warrant rescission. The standard for granting condonation is stringent, and the Second Applicant did not meet the requirements. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The Second Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.