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 1879
|
|
Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2022-035973) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1879 (6 November 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case
Number: 2022-035973
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO.
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.
(3)
REVISED.
DATE:
2023-11-06
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
First
Applicant
NGAKO
SERUMOLA N.O.
Second
Applicant
and
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED
Respondent
This
judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to
the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to
the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
The date for
handing down is deemed to be 6 November
2023.
JUDGMENT:
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
POTTERILL
J
[1]
I have read the grounds of appeal, the heads of argument of all the
parties and listened
to argument.
[2]
The applicants to this application seek leave on reasonable prospects
of success and
compelling reasons.
[3]
The compelling issues raised are generic and not based on the facts
or merits of this
matter and thus do not comply with:
“
Compelling reason
includes an important question of law or a discrete issue of public
importance that will have an effect on future
disputes. But
here too, the merits remain vitally important and are often
decisive.”
[1]
[4]
As for the prospects of success, I am satisfied that no other court
will find there
are reasonable prospects of success. The
case-law confirms that the Master does not have a general
discretion. I did
not accept any hearsay evidence in coming to
my finding, only direct evidence. Even without the acceptance
of the supplementary
affidavit the findings will stay the same as the
same evidence appears in the founding and replying affidavits.
The respondents
never denied that the applicant’s claim was
filed at 08h55, with RA1 confirming same. There were no
bona
fide
factual disputes put up by the Master requiring the
principles of
Plascon-Evans
to be applied.
[5]
A review in terms of
section 151
of the
Insolvency Act 24 of 1936
is
applicable and not a review in terms of the
Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
.
[6]
The Master of NCA Plant Hire CC v Blackfield Group Holdings (Pty)
Limited
[2021] JOL 51810
(GJ) does not bind this Court and the
facts differs and the question to be decided differs. The Court
therein accepted that
a settlement agreement was concluded between
the parties and therefore the provisional order of sequestration was
discharged.
[7]
Costs of two counsel will be addressed by the taxing master and will
only be granted
if so employed.
[8]
I accordingly dismiss the application for leave to appeal. The
first and second
respondents to pay the costs jointly and severally.
S.
POTTERILL
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
CASE
NO:
2022-035973
HEARD
ON:
3
November 2023
FOR
THE FIRST AND SECOND APPLICANTS:
ADV.
N. MATHLE-NDLAZI
INSTRUCTED
BY:
State
Attorney, Pretoria
FOR
THE RESPONDENT:
ADV.
J. VORSTER
INSTRUCTED
BY:
Werksmans
Incorporated
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
6
November 2023
[1]
Caratco (Pty)
Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd
2020
(5) SA 35
(SCA) paragraph [2]