Zondo and Another v Nedbank Limited (82048/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 317 (25 April 2018)
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the reasons for the original dismissal of the rescission application. After reviewing the arguments and the requirements under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court found that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] ZAGPPHC 317
- Parties
- Applicant: Zondo, Elias Maenufikke; Applicant: Zondo, Nthabiseng; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 82048/2016
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
- Outcome
- Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including interpreter costs.
- Judges
- Millar
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zondo, Elias Maenufikke
Applicant
Zondo, Nthabiseng
Applicant
Nedbank Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of their rescission application.
- 2 Whether the court erred in finding that service of the original application was effected upon the respondents.
- 3 Whether the applicants made out a case for the relief sought in the rescission application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court considered the grounds for leave to appeal and the reasons for the original dismissal of the rescission application. After reviewing the arguments and the requirements under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, the court found that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed with costs, including the costs of the interpreter.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including interpreter costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between party and party, including the costs of the interpreter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1) NOT REPORTABLE
(2) NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
(3) REVISED.
Case No. 82048/2016
25/4/2018
In the matter between:
ZONDO, ELIAS MAENUFIKKE
FIRST APPLICANT
ZONDO , NTHABISENG
SECOND APPLICANT
And
NEDBANK LIMITED FIRST RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MILLAR, A J
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of an application for rescission of judgment with costs on 5 March 2018.
2. The applicants were unrepresented during the hearing of the application. The respondent provided at its cost and on request by the court, an interpreter to assist the applicants as they preferred to speak isiZulu. The application for leave to appeal proceeded on the same basis.
3. The test for the granting of leave to appeal is set out in S17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 as follows:
"Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that -
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard; including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
(b) the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 16(2)(a); and
(c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.
4. The application is brought on the basis that the court erred in finding that there had been service of the original application upon the respondents and further that the applicants had failed to make out a case for the granting of the relief that they sought.
5. I have considered the grounds upon which this application for leave to appeal has been brought, my reasons for granting the order of 5 March 2018 and the arguments advanced by the parties and am of the view that there is no reasonable prospect that another court would come to a different conclusion.
6. In the circumstances, I make the following order:
6.1 The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the scale as between party and party which costs are to include the costs of the interpreter.
A MILLAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
HEARD ON
: 17 APRIL 2018
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 17 APRIL 2018
FOR THE APPLICANTS
: IN PERSON
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT : ADV AP ELLIS
INSTRUCTED BY
: BEZUIDENHOUT VANZYL &
ASSOCIATES INC
REFERENCE
: G VAN DER MERWE