Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2022-035973) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1879 (6 November 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 1879 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2022-035973) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1879 (6 November 2023) Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2022-035973) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1879 (6 November 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1879.html sino date 6 November 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case Number:  2022-035973 (1) REPORTABLE:  NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  NO. (3) REVISED. DATE: 2023-11-06 SIGNATURE In the matter between: THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA First Applicant NGAKO SERUMOLA N.O. Second Applicant and FIRSTRAND BANK LIMITED Respondent This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.  The date for handing down is deemed to be 6 November 2023. JUDGMENT:  APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL POTTERILL J [1]        I have read the grounds of appeal, the heads of argument of all the parties and listened to argument. [2]        The applicants to this application seek leave on reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons. [3]        The compelling issues raised are generic and not based on the facts or merits of this matter and thus do not comply with: “ Compelling reason includes an important question of law or a discrete issue of public importance that will have an effect on future disputes.  But here too, the merits remain vitally important and are often decisive.” [1] [4]        As for the prospects of success, I am satisfied that no other court will find there are reasonable prospects of success.  The case-law confirms that the Master does not have a general discretion.  I did not accept any hearsay evidence in coming to my finding, only direct evidence.  Even without the acceptance of the supplementary affidavit the findings will stay the same as the same evidence appears in the founding and replying affidavits.  The respondents never denied that the applicant’s claim was filed at 08h55, with RA1 confirming same.  There were no bona fide factual disputes put up by the Master requiring the principles of Plascon-Evans to be applied. [5]        A review in terms of section 151 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 is applicable and not a review in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 . [6] The Master of NCA Plant Hire CC v Blackfield Group Holdings (Pty) Limited [2021] JOL 51810 (GJ) does not bind this Court and the facts differs and the question to be decided differs.  The Court therein accepted that a settlement agreement was concluded between the parties and therefore the provisional order of sequestration was discharged. [7]        Costs of two counsel will be addressed by the taxing master and will only be granted if so employed. [8]        I accordingly dismiss the application for leave to appeal.  The first and second respondents to pay the costs jointly and severally. S. POTTERILL JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT CASE NO: 2022-035973 HEARD ON: 3 November 2023 FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND APPLICANTS: ADV. N. MATHLE-NDLAZI INSTRUCTED BY: State Attorney, Pretoria FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV. J. VORSTER INSTRUCTED BY: Werksmans Incorporated DATE OF JUDGMENT: 6 November 2023 [1] Caratco (Pty) Ltd v Independent Advisory (Pty) Ltd 2020 (5) SA 35 (SCA) paragraph [2] sino noindex make_database footer start