About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 285
|
|
Nonyane and Others v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank and Another (950/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 285 (25 July 2023)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE
DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case Number: 950/2022
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
CIRCULATE TO MAGISTRATES:
YES/NO
In
the matter between:
KOOS
NONYANE
1
st
Applicant
WILLIAM
MOTIATSI
2
nd
Applicant
ANDRIES
MOTSI
3
rd
Applicant
EUNICE
NONYANE
4
th
Applicant
And
FIRST
RAND BANK LTD t/a FIRST NATIONAL BANK
1
st
Respondent
PIETER
WILLEM ADRIAAN RHEEDER
2
nd
Respondent
In
re
FIRST
RAND BANK LTD t/a FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Applicant
And
PIETER
WILLEM ADRIAAN RHEEDER
Respondent
HEARD
ON:
21
APRIL 2023
HEADS
OF ARGUMENT FILED ON 4, 17 & 25 MAY 2023
JUDGMENT
BY:
DANISO,
J
DELIVERED
ON:
This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email and by release to SAFLII. The
date
and time for hand-down is deemed to be 25 JULY 2023 at 12H00.
[1]
The applicants and the second respondent (Rheeder) seek leave to
appeal to the full bench of this
division alternatively the Supreme
Court of Appeal against the whole judgments and orders delivered by
Zietsman AJ on 12 August
2022 granting the first respondent’s
(FNB) provisional sequestration of Rheeder’s estate and by Pohl
AJ on 20 October
2022 confirming the provisional sequestration
including the dismissal of the applicants’ application to
intervene in the
sequestration proceedings (the main applications).
The applicants and Rheeder’s estate were respectively ordered
to pay the
costs.
[2]
The sequestration proceedings followed upon a default judgment
obtained by FNB against Rheeder
as surety and other defendants as
co-sureties for unpaid mortgage loan over the farm Saamwerk situated
in Wesselbron occupied by
Rheeder, his family and his employees the
applicants in this matter.
[3]
The premise of this application is that
there
is a reasonable possibility that the full bench of this division or
the Supreme Court of Appeal would come to a different
decision in
that there are reasonable prospects of the appeal succeeding as
contemplated in section 17(1)(a) of the
Superior Courts Act 10
of 2013
in terms of which leave can only be granted where I am
certain that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
[4]
I am not so convinced. I have considered the grounds of appeal as
embodied in the notice of application
for leave to appeal and find
them to be a regurgitation of the averments made in the applicants’
and Rheeder’s affidavits
and also the arguments presented in
the main applications. I am of the view that the impugned judgments
have adequately dealt with
all the aspects raised in the grounds of
appeal. (See Zietsman, AJ’s reasons for the orders made on ages
116 to 124 of the
paginated court bundle and Pohl, AJ’s reasons
on pages 65 to 96.) I am aligning myself with the conclusions made in
the main
judgments based on these reasons, the application for leave
to appeal
stands to be dismissed.
ORDER
[5]
In the result the following order is made:
1.
The application for leave to appeal to the full
bench of this division or Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed with
costs.
N.S.
DANISO, J
For
the applicants & 2
nd
Respondent:
Mr.
HSL. Du Plessis
HSL
Du Plessis Attorneys
C/O
Blair Attorney
BLOEMFONTEIN
.
For
the first respondent:
Adv.
M.P Van der Merwe(SC) with Adv. S. Tsangarakis
Tonie
O’Reilly Attorneys
C/O
Symmington de Kok Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN