Sampson v WesBank, A Division of FirstRand Bank (11300/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 503 (17 May 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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 503 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Sampson v WesBank, A Division of FirstRand Bank (11300/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 503 (17 May 2023) Sampson v WesBank, A Division of FirstRand Bank (11300/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 503 (17 May 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_503.html sino date 17 May 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  11300/2021 DATE :  11-05-2023 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED In the matter between DARREN SAMPSON Applicant and WESBANK, DIVISION OF FIRSTRAND BANK Respondent Neutral Citation: Darren Sampson Vs Wesbank, a Division of Firstrand Bank (Case No. 11300/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 503 (17 May 2023) J U D G M E N T STRYDOM, J :This is an ex-tempore judgment.  This is an application for leave to appeal against my order and judgment in this matter dated 3 February 2023. Before dealing with the merits of the application I need to make a few remarks.  This application for leave to appeal was set down for a hearing today on 11 May 2023, pursuant to an application for leave to appeal, which was filed by the applicant, Mr Darren Sampson (Mr Sampson), acting on his own behalf. The hearing took place on a Microsoft Teams meeting platform.  Mr Sampson appeared on a link in person.  The respondent was represented by Counsel, Ms Meyer. Mr Sampson started to argue the application by referring the court to his previous matters and encounters with various judges.  I told Mr Sampson that he must confine himself to my judgment and order and make submissions to indicate where I went wrong in the judgment.  The court informed him that he must convince this court why another court would come to a different decision. Mr Sampson stated that he has a bipolar disorder and that this court should not have entertained the summary judgment application.  The court then continued to explain to Mr Sampson what he should address the court on, but he stated that the judges of this division gossip and does not want to deal with his matters. All of a sudden Mr Sampson told the court on the Teams meeting record as follows, and I paraphrase:  “Fuck off, fuck off, jou ma se poes”.  He then left the meeting. The record of the proceedings should be transcribed and the matter is then referred to the Legal Practice Council for consideration and to take the necessary steps against Mr Sampson, who clearly acted in contempt of this court.  According to the information available to this court at this stage Mr Sampson is an attorney. Dealing now with the leave to appeal application.  Section 17(1) of the Supreme Court Act stipulates that leave to appeal may only be given where the judge concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. I have considered my judgment, dated 3 February 2023, and I must just note that two reference to January 2023 should have read February 2023.  Thus, the reference to “2 January 2023”, should have been “2 February 2023”, and the reference to “3 January 2023”, should have been “3 February 2023”. Nothing much turns on this as I am satisfied that Mr Sampson could have appeared before the court on Friday 3 February 20223 on the link but decided not to do so.  I am satisfied that another court would not find that this court should not have dealt with this matter without the appearance of Mr Sampson. More so considering that Mr Sampson’s answering affidavit and heads of argument was before court for consideration. The court considered the defences raised by Mr Sampson in his opposing affidavit in the summary judgment application.  Nothing contained in the application for leave to appeal or what Mr Sampson argued before this court, before he left the meeting, indicate that another court would come to a different decision than the decision of this court. Mr Sampson has not shown to this court that he has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs. STRYDOM, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  17 MAY 2023 For the applicant: Mr. D. Sampson Instructed by: In person. For the Respondent: Adv. K. Meyer Instructed by: C F Van Coller Inc Date of hearing: 11 May 2023 Date of judgment: 17 May 2023 sino noindex make_database footer start