About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 684
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Monama v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (Application for Leave to Appeal) (145679/2024) [2026] ZAGPJHC 684 (10 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number: 145679/2024
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
10
June 2026
In
the matter between:
ANETTE
PARANE
MONAMA
Applicant
and
FIRSTRAND
BANK LIMITED T/A WESBANK
Respondent
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Mahosi,
J
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of this Court’s
judgment and order handed down on 9 February
2026 to the Full Court.
The respondent opposes the application.
[2]
The application is premised on the basis that this Court erred in
failing to consider that the respondent filed an application
for
default judgment before the 20 days to respond had expired; the
applicant wanted to pay, but was turned away and told it was
not
possible; the delay for the filing of the notice of intention to
defend and plea was not wilful; the applicant was relying
on
Debtbuster to pay back the respondent before she understood how it
worked, and the respondent did not send any notification
to the
applicant before serving her with the summons.
[3]
The test for leave to appeal is regulated by section 17(1) of the
Superior Courts Act, which reads:
"(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;
(b)
the
decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section
16(2)(a); and
(c)
where
the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues
in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt
resolution of
the real issues between the parties."
[4]
Having had regard to both parties’ submissions and arguments,
this Court is not satisfied that the applicant has
demonstrated that
there is misdirection of fact or law in its judgment and that there
is a reasonable prospect that another Court
would come to a different
conclusion. The grounds raised are essentially a repetition of the
arguments already considered and rejected
in the rescission
application. As a result, the application for leave to appeal falls
to be dismissed.
[5]
The respondent sought a punitive costs order on the scale between the
attorney and the client. While the applicant’s
conduct in
delaying proceedings and raising unsubstantiated defences is
dilatory, I do not consider it so egregious as to warrant
a punitive
order.
Order
[6]
Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. The application
for leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The applicant is
to pay the respondent’s costs of this application on the
party-and-party scale A.
D.
Mahosi
Judge
of the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
Heard:
10 June 2026
Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives through email. The date
for hand-down
is deemed to be 10 June 2026
Appearances
For
the applicant:
Self
For
the respondent:
Advocate M. Arroyo
Instructed
by:
Strauss
Daly Attorneys
c/o Trevor Swartz
Attorneys