About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPJHC 797
|
|
Khoza v First Rand Bank Limited: In re: First Rand Bank Limited v Khoza (21311/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 797 (12 October 2022)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
CASE
NUMBER: 21311/2017
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
2022/10/12
In
the matters between:
GIVEN
KHOZA
Applicant
and
FIRST
RAND BANK
LIMITED
Respondent
In
re:
FIRST
RAND BANK
LIMITED
Plaintiff
and
GIVEN
KHOZA
Defendant
This
judgment has been delivered by being uploaded to the caselines
profile on 12 October 2022 at 10h00 and communicated to the
parties
by email.
APPLICATION
FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT
Sutherland
DJP
Introduction
[1]
This an application for leave to appeal against an order made by
Tsoka J on 1 February
2018. The matter was heard in the unopposed
motion court and an order was given without reasons, as is the
practice in that court.
Eleven months elapsed and on 29 November
2019, a notice of application for leave to appeal was lodged by the
defendant against
whom the order had been made. After that date the
defendant had made no attempts whatsoever to prosecute the
application for leave
to appeal.
[2]
On 5 October 2022, notice of this hearing at the instance of the
plaintiff was made
and the matter comes before me on 12 October 2022.
It is plain from the bare bones of the application for leave to
appeal that
no hint is given as to what grounds might be relied upon
to support the application, and to that extent, it is problematic,
even
on a generous interpretation, that rule 49 of the rules of court
have been complied with.
[3]
In any event for reason of non-prosecution, the application itself
deserves to be
dismissed. The relief which is sought in terms of the
draft order, is that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed
and
that Mr Khoza, the applicant for the application for leave to
appeal should pay the costs of this application. This seems to be
wholly appropriate.
[4]
In this circumstances:
(1) The order is made in
terms of the draft order dated 12 October 2022, attached hereto.
Sutherland
DJP
Heard:
12 October 2022
Judgment:
12 October 2022
The
Applicants were represented by:
Adv
Raymond Peterson
Instructed
by:
Glover Kannieappan Incorporated
There
was no appearance on behalf of the respondent.