Venter v First National Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 290; 68355/2018 (26 April 2023)

Venter v First National Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 290; 68355/2018 (26 April 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion on the order previously granted. The reasons for the original judgment were provided and, upon careful consideration of the papers and arguments, the court was not persuaded that the threshold set by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act was met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded against the applicant.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 290
Parties
Applicant: Annette Venter; Respondent: First National Bank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2023
Case Number
68355/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 6 December 2022.
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicant.
Judges
ENB Khwinana
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Superior Courts Act, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Superior Courts Act Reasonable Prospect of Success

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annette Venter

Applicant

First National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Delivered on 6 December 2022.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in terms of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion.
  3. 3 Whether there is any compelling reason for the appeal to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion on the order previously granted. The reasons for the original judgment were provided and, upon careful consideration of the papers and arguments, the court was not persuaded that the threshold set by section 17(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act was met. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused and costs awarded against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused. Costs are awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The fifth respondent is to pay the costs of the application.