Matjabeng Local Municipality v Factoring SPV (Pty) Ltd (4509/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 155 (14 September 2017)

35 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against court orders — Applicant sought to rectify omissions in court order — Court found no merit in the application for leave to appeal — Application dismissed with costs.

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
>>
2017
>>
[2017] ZAFSHC 155
|

|

Matjabeng Local Municipality v Factoring SPV (Pty) Ltd (4509/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 155 (14 September 2017)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Case
No: 4509/2016
In
the application between:
MATJABENG
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY
Applicant
and
FACTORING
SPV (PTY)
LTD
Respondent
JUDGMENT
BY:
C REINDERS, J
HEARD
ON:
7 SEPTEMBER 2017
DELIVERED
ON:
14
SEPTEMBER 2017
[1]
This is an application for leave to appeal against the orders granted
by myself on 26 June 2017.
[2]
The court order issued by the registrar differs from the orders that
I made in that words had been omitted, presumably due to
typing
errors. For sake of clarity I need to record that the orders I made
as encapsulated on the court file and judgment itself,
were as
follows:
1. The Debt Repayment
Agreement and acknowledgement of debt between Maree Van Wyk
Incorporated and the Respondent concluded on 26
March 2014 (and ceded
to the Applicant), is made an order of Court.
2.  Respondent is
ordered to pay Applicant the amount of R 20 064 000,00 plus
interest at the rate of 15,5% per annum
from 17 July 2015 until date
of payment in full.
3.  Respondent is
ordered to pay the costs of this application.
4.  The counterclaim
is dismissed with costs.
[3]
Mr Edeling of the local bar appeared before me on behalf of the
applicant at the hearing for leave and
Mr Louw represented the
respondent.
[4]
Having studied the papers, my judgment, the grounds stated in the
application for leave and listening to oral arguments before
me, I am
not convinced that leave should be granted herein.
[4]
Accordingly the following order will issue:
The application is
dismissed with costs.
______________
C.
REINDERS, J
On
behalf of the applicant:
Adv. W.J. Edeling
Instructed by:
Moroka Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of the respondent :      Adv. M.C.
Louw
Instructed by:
Hill, McHardy &
Herbst Inc.
BLOEMFONTEIN