ABSA Bank Limited v AA Diamonds (Pty) Ltd (29174/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1432 (8 December 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 1432 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## ABSA Bank Limited v AA Diamonds (Pty) Ltd (29174/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1432 (8 December 2023) ABSA Bank Limited v AA Diamonds (Pty) Ltd (29174/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1432 (8 December 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1432.html sino date 8 December 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO:29174/2019 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED In the matter between: ABSA BANK LIMITED APPLICANT/RESPONDENT And AA DIAMONDS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT/APPLICANT LEAVE TO APPEAL JUDGEMENT ALLY AJ This is an application for leave to appeal launched by the Respondent against the whole of my judgement dated 21 May 2021. [2] The parties in this application were represented by Adv. J.W. Steyn for the Applicant/Respondent and Mr L. Marks for the Respondent/Applicant. [3] The parties are referred to as in the main application for the sake of convenience. [4] It has now become trite that the test in applications for leave to appeal has changed to one which is heightened [1] . The Respondent is accordingly required to convince this Court that another Court ‘would’ come to another conclusion. [5] I do not deem it necessary to repeat the grounds of appeal in this judgement save to state that I have considered all the grounds as well as the submissions of both parties in this application. [6] I remain unconvinced that another court would come to a different conclusion and accordingly I am of the view that there are no reasonable prospects of success and there are no compelling reasons to grant this application for leave to appeal. Accordingly, the application must fail and costs must follow the result. [7] Accordingly, the following Order shall issue: a). The application for leave to appeal by the Respondent is dismissed with costs. G ALLY ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Electronically submitted therefore unsigned Delivered:  This judgement 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 hand-down is deemed to be 8 December 2023. Date of virtual hearing: 29 June 2023 Date of judgment: 8 December 2023 Appearances: Attorneys for the Applicant/Respondent  : JAY MOTHOBI INC quentin@jay.co.za/esme@jay.co.za Counsel for Applicant/Respondent : Adv. J.W. Steyn Attorneys for the Respondent/Applicant  : LARRY MARKS ATTORNEYS info@lam.co.za [1] The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen 3 November 2014 (unreported judgement LCC Case No: LCC14R/2014; The Acting National Director of Public Prosecution v Democratic Alliance (unreported case no: 19577/09 dated 24 June 2016); First Reality (Pty) Ltd v Mitchell & Others 2021 ZALCC 21 dated 23 August 2021 @ para 2 sino noindex make_database footer start