Bangani v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (804/2023P; 805/2023P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 123 (24 November 2025)

Case Note

Bulelani Zolani Bangani v The Standard Bank of SA Ltd
Case No: 804/2023P; 805/2023P
Date: 24 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significance in clarifying the tests for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It illustrates the higher threshold that appellants must satisfy to obtain leave for an appeal compared to previous standards. The case serves as an important reference for future applications concerning the interpretation of the statutory requirements as well as the evaluation of prospects for success on appeal, hence contributing to the jurisprudence in South African law.

Cases Cited

1. MEC Health Eastern Cape v Mkhitha (1221/2015) (2016) ZASCA 176 (25 November 2016)
2. Smith v S 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA)
3. Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tuck 1989 (4) SA 888 (T)
4. Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen and 18 Others (LCC14R/2014) [2014] ZA LCC 20 (3 November 2014)
5. Notshokovu v S (157/15) [2016] ZASCA (7 September 2016)
6. Four Wheel Drive CC v Leshni Rattan NO 2019 (3) SA 451 (SCA)
7. Wilken and Others NHO v Reichonberg 1999 (1) SA 852 (W)

Legislation Cited

• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The matter concerned an application for leave to appeal following a judgment which resulted in the sequestration of Bulelani Zolani Bangani's estate and the Bangani Family Trust. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reasons to grant such an appeal.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed include the correct interpretation of the requirements set out in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act regarding leave to appeal and the assessment of the reasonable prospect of success. The court also considered the implications of a nulla bona return and the nature of disputes concerning fact and law pertinent to the execution process.

Held

The court held that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, concluding that the applicants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success and that their appeal was not founded on compelling reasons as outlined in applicable precedents and legislation.

THE FACTS

The application arose from an earlier court order dated 20 September 2024, which led to the sequestration of Mr. Bangani's estate as well as that of the Bangani Family Trust. The Standard Bank had previously obtained a judgment against Mr. Bangani and the Trust for significant amounts, which were not settled. Following the unsuccessful attempts to recover the debt through a Warrant of Execution, the Sheriff recorded a nulla bona return, indicating that no assets could be attached to satisfy the debt.

During the application, Mr. Bangani contended that the Sheriff did not provide adequate dispute to the claims concerning the nulla bona return. Subsequently, several grounds of appeal were raised, but most were withdrawn, leaving only three core arguments contesting the initial ruling's validity.

THE ISSUES

The court had to determine whether the application for leave to appeal met the criteria established under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act. Specifically, the issue revolved around whether there was a reasonable prospect of success that another court would arrive at a different conclusion. Additionally, the legitimacy of the claims regarding the nulla bona return and the existence of disputes of fact was also in question.

ANALYSIS

The court began by emphasizing the elevated standard imposed by section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, indicating that applicants must now demonstrate a realistically probable chance that another court would decide differently from the lower court. The judgment references prior cases that illustrate this heightened duty, stressing that mere possibilities or speculative grounds cannot suffice for a successful appeal.

The court critically assessed the grounds of appeal put forth by Mr. Bangani and noted that while he alleged the Sheriff’s service was deficient, he failed to provide substantive evidence countering the Sheriff’s return. It was pointed out that Mr. Bangani's own statements indicated an inability to provide alternative assets to settle the judgment debt, thus diminishing the credibility of his claims regarding factual disputes.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the defenses raised did not indicate a genuine material dispute that would warrant a different judgment, affirming that the absence of other substantial evidence to challenge the earlier findings undermined the application for leave to appeal.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs, ruling that there were no reasonable prospects of success and that the appeal did not present compelling reasons for it to be heard by a higher court.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles extracted from this judgment include: the necessity of establishing a reasonable prospect of success on appeal as a prerequisite for leave to appeal, the rigorous nature of the tests under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, and the requirement to provide concrete evidence in disputes of fact and law. The ruling confirms that vague claims without substantiating evidence will not suffice to meet judicial standards for appeal considerations.