Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025) Capitec Bank Limited v Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Ltd (2023/127918) [2025] ZAGPJHC 304 (19 March 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_304.html sino date 19 March 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case no: 2023/127918 (1)  REPORTABLE: NO (2)  OF INEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO In the matter between: CAPITEC BANK LIMITED Applicant and UBUNTU FAMILY HEALTH CENTRE GRAYSTON (PTY) LTD Respondent This judgment was delivered by uploading it to the court online digital database of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Johannesburg, and by email to the attorneys of record of the parties on 19 March 2025. JUDGMENT VAN DER WALT AJ [1] This is a judgment in an application for leave to appeal. The applicant is Capitec Bank Limited. The respondent is Ubuntu Family Health Centre Grayston (Pty) Limited, now in liquidation, who abides the decision of this court. [2] In the judgment which is the subject of this application for leave to appeal, I interpreted subsection 133(1) of the Companies Act. [1] In doing so, I found that the interpretations of most pertinently the phrases “legal proceeding” (if had been interpreted not to include the rei vindicatio) and “lawfully in its possession” in previous judgments of this court and that of other divisions are, with respect, incorrect. [3] The decision appealed against therefore involves a question of law of importance in respect of which a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is required to resolve the differences of opinion. [4] In the event, I make the following order: 1.  Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. 2.  Costs are to be costs in the appeal. Nico van der Walt Acting Judge, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg. Heard:                    19 March 2025 Judgment:              19 March 2025 Appearances: For the applicant Mr W.G. Pretorius Instructed by Brooks & Braatvedt Inc. For the respondent Mr S. Janse Van Rensburg SC Instructed by liquidators Messrs Seima and Sibanda [1] Act 71 of 2008. sino noindex make_database footer start