Mashilo Shadrack Sebola and Another v The Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Another

This is a procedural application before the Constitutional Court. The Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (1st Respondent) filed a notice of motion seeking condonation for the late filing of its Notice of Intention to Oppose in proceedings brought by Mashilo Shadrack Sebola and Nombeko Daphne Sebola (the Applicants). The application was supported by an affidavit of Revasha Nowbath. The underlying substantive dispute involved the Applicants, Standard Bank, and the Deputy Sheriff of the High Court Roodepoort. The precise nature of the main dispute is not evident from this procedural notice of motion.

• Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the 1st Respondent's Notice of Intention to Oppose
• What the appropriate costs order should be in relation to the condonation application

No outcome is available as this document is a Notice of Motion seeking relief, not a judgment. The relief sought by Standard Bank was: (1) condonation for late filing of the Notice of Intention to Oppose, and (2) that the Applicants pay costs only in the event of opposition to the condonation application. The actual outcome of this application is not contained in the document provided.

No ratio decidendi is available as this document is a Notice of Motion for condonation filed by Standard Bank, not a judgment of the Constitutional Court. A ratio decidendi can only be extracted from a court's decision containing its legal reasoning and binding principles. This procedural document does not contain any judicial determination or legal principle established by the court.

No obiter dicta is available as this document is not a judgment but rather a procedural Notice of Motion. Obiter dicta refers to non-binding observations made by a court in its judgment, which can only exist where there is an actual judicial decision. This document contains only the 1st Respondent's application for condonation and does not reflect any statements or observations by the Constitutional Court.

No significance can be determined as this document is merely a procedural notice of motion for condonation, not a substantive judgment of the Constitutional Court. The document does not reveal whether the application was granted, refused, or what legal principles were applied. Without the actual judgment, no assessment of the case's importance to South African jurisprudence can be made.