Muchenje and Another v Investec Bank Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17072/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 (28 September 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Muchenje and Another v Investec Bank Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17072/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 (28 September 2023) Muchenje and Another v Investec Bank Ltd (Leave to Appeal) (17072/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1212 (28 September 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1212.html sino date 28 September 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 17072/2022 (1)  REPORTABLE: NO (2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)  REVISED: YES SIGNATURE: DATE: 28/09/2023 In the matter between: MUCHENJE,LAZARUS First Applicant MUCHENJE, JANET Second Applicant and INVESTEC BANK LTD Respondent (Registration no. 169/004763/06) LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGMENT SKOSANA AJ [1]        Pursuant to my judgment, the applicant ("Investec") has sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA), alternatively to the Full Court of this Division. The parties have agreed that there are only two crisp issues raised in this application, namely, whether or not a further cancellation notice in terms of section 129(3) of the National Credit Act 34 of 2005 was required and whether or not the reinstatement of the home loan agreement is legally justified. [2]        The applicant contended that the issue regarding the necessity of a section 129(3) notice after a judgment is res nova while the respondent countered that it has been settled by the judgment of ABSA Bank [1] . In my view, the issue was not canvassed stricto sensu in that judgment and may therefore well be res nova . [3]        However, that is not sufficient on its own as a ground for granting leave to appeal in the first place and in the second, leave to appeal to the SCA. Even the provisions of section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 , broad as they are, do not in my view encompass such ground. First, there are no conflicting judgments. This much was conceded by counsel for Investec. Second, I find no persuasive ground that may lead to the alteration of the stance of this court and therefore no compelling reason why the appeal should be heard. [4]        On the second issue relating to reinstatement, I am still convinced that payment was made on behalf of and for the benefit of the respondents and such payment was accepted by Investec. Paragraphs 26 and 27 of Mostert case [2] do not, in my view, assist Investec. On the contrary, they appear to support the respondents' contentions [5]        In the circumstances, I make the following order: 1.         The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. DT SKOSANA Acting Judge of the High Court APPERANCES Applicants' counsel: Applicants' attorneys: Respondent's counsel: 1 st Respondent's attorneys: [1] ABSA v Bank Ltd v De Villiers 2009 (5) SA 40 (C) paras 12-14; see also ABSA Bank Ltd v Havenga 2010 (5) SA 533 (GP) at 537C-D [2] Mostert v First Rand Bank 2018 (4) SA 443 (SCA) sino noindex make_database footer start