Felix and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (49134/2013) [2024] ZAGPPHC 483 (23 May 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 483 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Felix and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (49134/2013) [2024] ZAGPPHC 483 (23 May 2024) Felix and Another v Nedbank Limited and Another (49134/2013) [2024] ZAGPPHC 483 (23 May 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_483.html sino date 23 May 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No. 49134/2013 (1)  REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO (3)  REVISED DATE: 23 May 2024 SIGNATURE:. In the matter between: FELIX, JOSE AMERICO GONCALVES                                                       1 st APPLICANT FELIX, MARIA JUDITE PESTANA                                                            2 ND APPLICANT And NEDBANK LIMITED                                                                               1 ST RESPONDENT SHERIFF OF THE COURT                                                                     2 nd RESPONDENT Coram: Millar J Heard on: 23 May 2024 Delivered: 23 May 2024 - This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' representatives by email, by being uploaded to the CaseLines system of the GD and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 11h00 on 23 May 2024. ORDER It is Ordered: [1]        The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client. JUDGMENT MILLAR J [1] This is an application for leave to appeal brought by the applicants against the dismissal of an urgent application for the granting of an interim interdict with punitive costs on 15 May 2024. [2] The test for granting leave to appeal 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 [1] 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.  I have also considered the submissions made by counsel for the granting of leave to appeal on the part of the applicant and those opposing the granting of leave to appeal on behalf of the first respondent. [4] 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. [5] The costs follow the result. [6] In the circumstances, I make the following order: [6.1]           The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs on the scale as between attorney and client. A MILLAR JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA HEARD ON: 23 MAY 2024 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: 23 MAY 2024 COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS: ADV. I MURERIWA INSTRUCTED BY: GARY SEGAL ATTORNEYS REFERENCE: MR. G SEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT : ADV. D VAN NIEKERK INSTRUCTED BY: ENDERSTEIN MALUMBETE INC REFERENCE: N MALUMBETE-MALULEKE NO APPEARANCE FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT [1] 10 of 2013. sino noindex make_database footer start