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
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPPHC 66
|
|
Land And Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Marcus M Farming CC and Others (44773/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 66 (10 January 2018)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(1)
NOT REPORTABLE
(2)
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
(3)
REVISED.
Case No: 44773/2016
10/1/2018
In
the matter between:
LAND AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
BANK
OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Plaintiff
and
MARCUS M FARMING CC
1
st
Defendant
KGABO VIRGINIA MASENYA
2
nd
Defendant
MATOOTO LYDIA MASENYA
3
rd
Defendant
PAULINE MPHEFO
NGOETSANA
4
th
Defendant
CORNELIUS
LESIBA KENNETH NGOETSANA
5
th
Defendant
LESETJA
SOLOMON
MASENYA
6
th
Defendant
TLOU JULIA
MASENYA
7
th
Defendant
JUDGMENT
HF
JACOBS, AJ:
[1]
This is an application for leave to
appeal. In their notice of application for leave to appeal the seven
defendants aver that I
have erred in finding that the defendants did
not show a
bona fide
defence
to successfully resist the summary judgment proceedings and that the
decision appealed against involves questions of law
that are novel
and of importance to the extent that it requires the attention of the
Supreme Court of Appeal. In the alternative
leave to appeal is sought
to the Full Court of this Division.
[2]
The defendants list the eight grounds of
appeal they rely on in their notice. Those include the defences dealt
with in the main
judgment to which they added a seventh ground
pertaining to the costs order made in the summary judgment
proceedings and the eighth
ground of appeal that there exist
conflicting decisions in our Courts on points of law that shows that
I should exercise my discretion
in their favour by granting them
leave to appeal.
[3]
The principles that find application
when considering an application for leave to appeal have been set out
in
Hunter.
[1]
To
those principles should, in my view, be added, having regard to the
fact that leave to appeal is sought against summary judgment,
the
principle set out in
Majola.
[2]
During argument I have been referred
to a number of judgments the defendants rely on to show that there
exist conflicting decisions
on the points of law they mention in
their notice. The decisions are in my view not conflicting. I have
considered the judgment
and the costs order. I have not been shown
any misdirection of fact or law and none of the well-established
grounds of appeal against
a costs order have been convincingly raised
by the defendants.
[4]
In my view the appeal has no reasonable
prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason to grant
the defendants leave
to appeal.
[5]
Leave to appeal is refused with costs.
HF
JACOBS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
10
JANUARY 2018
[1]
Hunter v Financial
Services Board
2017 JDR 0941 (GP).
[2]
Majola v Nitro Securitisation 1 (Pty) Ltd
2012 (1) SA 226
(SCA) at [25].