About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 290
|
|
Venter v First National Bank [2023] ZAGPPHC 290; 68355/2018 (26 April 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION:
PRETORIA)
Case
No. 68355/2018
(1) REPORTABLE:
NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES:
NO
(3) REVISED:
NO
DATE: 26
th
April 2023
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
ANNETTE
VENTER
APPLICANT
AND
FIRST NATIONAL
BANK
5TH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KHWINANA
AJ
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal
to the Supreme Court of Appeal alternatively full bench of the above
honorable court
against my judgment
granted
on this the 06th day of December 2022.
[2]
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act,
Act 10 of 2013 the Superior Courts
Act
regulates applications for leave to appeal and provides:
(1)
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.
[3]
The
test in an application for leave to appeal prior to the Superior
Courts Act was whether there were reasonable prospects that
another
court may come to a different conclusion.
[1]
Section 17(1) has raised the test, as Bertelsmann J, correctly
pointed out in The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others
2014
JDR 2325 (LCC) at para 61:
'It is clear that the
threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a High
Court has been raised in the new Act.
The former test whether leave
to appeal should be granted was a reasonable prospect that another
court might come to a different
conclusion, see Van Heerden v
Cornwright & Others 1985 (2) SA 342 (T) at 343H. The use of the
word "would" in the
new statute indicates a measure of
certainty that another court will differ from the court whose
judgment is sought to be appealed
against.'
[4]
The applicant’s leave to appeal is on
my findings save to say the reasons
have been given in my
judgment. Having read the papers and having carefully heard counsel I
come to the conclusion that there is
no reasonable prospect that
another court would come to a different conclusion on the order of
the court in terms of
section 17(1)(a)(i)
of the
Superior Courts Act
10 of 2013
.
In the result:
1.
Leave to appeal is refused.
2.
Fifth Respondent to pay the costs of the
application.
ENB KHWINANA
ACTING JUDGE OF NORTH
GAUTENG
HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
COUNSEL
FOR APPLICANT:
J W
STEYN
ATTORNEY
FOR APPLICANT:
MALETE
ATTORNEYS
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
S
MANGANYE
ATTORNEY
FOR RESPONDENT:
SWART
REDELINGHUIS NEL & PARTNERS
DATE
OF HEARING:
1
FEBRUARY 2023
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
26
APRIL
2023
[1]
Commissioner
of
Inland Revenue v Tuck
1989 (4) SA 888
(T) at 890