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
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPPHC 916
|
|
TNBH (Pty) Ltd and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (28819/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 916 (27 August 2025)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO:
28819/2021
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED.
DATE
27/08/2025
LENYAI
J
In
the matter of:
TNBH
(PTY) LTD
First
Applicant
MARIUS
STRYDOM
Second Applicant
And
STANDARD BANK OF
SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED
Respondent
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the
Parties/their legal representatives by email and by
uploading to
Caselines. The date and time of hand-down
is
deemed to be 14:00
on 27 August 2025.
JUDGMENT
LENYAI
J
1.
This is an application
for leave to appeal brought by the applicants against the whole
judgment and order granted by me on
the 19
th
December 2024.
2.
The
test for the granting of leave to appeal pertinent to the present
matter is set out in
section 17(1)
of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of
2013
as follows:
“
(
1)
Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned
are of the opinion that
(a)
(i) the
appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or
(ii) there is some other
compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration.”
3.
I have considered the
grounds upon which the application has been brought and the reasons
given by me for the judgment and the order.
I have also considered
the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal
on the part of the applicants and those
opposing the granting of
leave to appeal on behalf of the respondent.
4.
It is noteworthy to
mention that the applicants contend that judgment was delivered
whilst an application by the second applicant
to ament his plea was
still pending. During the proceedings, the court enquired if this
fact was brought to its attention and it
was established that none of
the parties had brought this issue to the court’s attention.
5.
In the matter of
Bechan
& Another v SARS Customs Investigations Unit and Others
(1196/2022) [2024] ZASCA20;
2024 (5) SA 1
(SCA); 86 SACT557 ( 5 March
2024) at paragraph 22,
the
court stated that:
“
For
the sake of completeness, it is necessary to record that as
preparations for the delivery of this judgment were being made the
appellant’s attorneys advised the Court that on 2 February 2024
the High Court set aside the search and seizure warrant.
This
was consequent to a separate application instituted by Bullion Star.
The Court was further advised by SARS’s attorneys
that it was
considering an appeal against the order. It is a well-established
general principle that this Court decides whether
the judgment
appealed against from is right or wrong according to the facts in
existence at the time it was given and not according
to new
circumstances that came into existence afterwards. It follows that
the subsequent setting aside of the warrant by the High
Court is
irrelevant to this appeal.”
6.
It has been established
that the subsequent applications to amend the pleadings by the
applicants was never brought to the court’s
attention by either
of the parties after the court has reserved judgment. I echo the
dictum of the SCA in the
Bechan
matter mentioned in
paragraph 5 above and state that the court decided the matter on the
facts that were before it at the time the
judgment was reserved and
could not be expected to have considered new facts and circumstances
that it was not aware of.
7.
I am not persuaded that
another court would come to a different conclusion or that there is
some other compelling reason why leave
to appeal should be
Granted
8.
In the circumstances, I
make the following order:
8.1 The
application for leave to appeal is refused.
8.2 The applicants
are ordered to pay the costs of the respondent on scale B.
MMD LENYAI J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
Counsel
for Appellants
:
Adv
April
Instructed
by
:
McCarthy
Cruywagen
Counsel
for Respondent. :
Adv
JH Jooste
Instructed
by :
Findlay
& Niemeyer Inc
Date
of hearing
:
21
August 2025
Date
of Judgement
:
27
August 2025