THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Not Reportable
Case no: 013589/2025
I
n the matter between:
DOREEN NOMVULA KGWELE APPLICANT
and
ABSA BANK LIMITED RESPONDENT
Heard:
5 June 2026
Delivered: 5
June 2026
JUDGEMENT –
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Mooki J
[1]
The applicant seeks leave to appeal the order by the Court made on 29 April 2026.
The grounds of appeal are that the Court erred in holding that the Bank followed all
2
procedures when effecting service; that the track and trace printout was insufficient
for purposes of service required in section 129 because the applicant did not receive
the documents, and that the Court erred in believing that the Pretoria North Post
Office was working properly.
[2]
The notice does not indicate the procedures that were not followed, in relation to the
first gound of appeal.
The applicant, in the hearing, limited her address to one issue;
namely that the Bank did not comply with the requirements for the sending of a
section 129 notice.
[3]
The applicant accepted that the Bank could send the notice through the post office.
She also submitted that she had, in the past, received notification from the post office
for her to collect material. She submitted that she did not, in this instance, receive
notification from the post office. It is in this regard that, according to the applicant,
the Bank did not comply with the requirements for the sending of a section 129
notice.
[4]
The Bank referred to the decision in Kubyana v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd 1 as
support for having complied with the law regarding the sending of a section 129 notice.
[5] There is nothing that suggests that the post office did not notify the applicant that a
registered item was available for collection. The track and trace report, as detailed in
the main judgement, show that such notification was sent. It is not a requirement that
the Bank must show that the applicant was subjectively aware of the sending of the
notice.
2
[6] Leave is granted only on a showing of reasonable prospects of success. The applicant
has not met the test for the granting of leave to appeal.
[7] I make the following order:
1 [2014] ZACC 1
2 Para 39
3
(1) The application is dismissed.
(2) The applicant is ordered to pay costs, on a party and party basis; the costs of counsel
being on Scale B.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearance:
Counsel for the Applicant: Appearance in person
Counsel for the
Respondent: C L Markram-Jooste
Instructed by: VZLR Inc.
Date heard: 5 June 2026
Date of judgement:
5 June 2026