Worthy Homes CC and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2743/06, ECJ77) [2006] ZAECHC 65 (21 November 2006)

Worthy Homes CC and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2743/06, ECJ77) [2006] ZAECHC 65 (21 November 2006)

The court found that the order in question was interlocutory in nature, as it merely directed that certain monies be held in trust pending registration of transfer or the outcome of an action to be instituted by the applicants. The order did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties nor a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The court rejected the respondent's submission that the order disposed of the counterclaim, noting that the validity of the agreement of sale and entitlement to the deposit would be determined in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the order was not a 'judgment or order' as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and leave to appeal was...

Citation
[2006] ZAECHC 65
Parties
Applicant: Worthy Homes CC; Applicant: Tripple R Developers CC; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Cold Creek Investments 43 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Immobili Retail Investments (Pty) Limited
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2006
Case Number
2743/06
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Dambuza
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Order, Finality of Judgment, Supreme Court Act Section 20
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order Finality of Judgment Supreme Court Act Section 20

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Worthy Homes CC

Applicant

Tripple R Developers CC

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited

Respondent

Cold Creek Investments 43 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Immobili Retail Investments (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order granted is a 'judgment or order' as envisaged in Section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act, 59 of 1959.
  2. 2 Whether the order is final in effect, definitive of the rights of the parties, and disposes of a substantial portion of the relief claimed.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the interlocutory order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order in question was interlocutory in nature, as it merely directed that certain monies be held in trust pending registration of transfer or the outcome of an action to be instituted by the applicants. The order did not finally dispose of the rights of the parties nor a substantial portion of the relief claimed. The court rejected the respondent's submission that the order disposed of the counterclaim, noting that the validity of the agreement of sale and entitlement to the deposit would be determined in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the order was not a 'judgment or order' as envisaged under Section 20(1) of the Supreme Court Act, and leave to appeal was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include costs of two counsel.