This is an urgent application instituted by the applicant, in which he seeks the following relief:
‘(a) To revoke and suspend the trading licenses of Wesbank, a division of First Rand Bank Limited. A bank duly registered and incorporated in terms of the banking laws of the Republic of South Africa.
(b) Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa to reprimand and enlighten Wesbank of their failure to comply with the Banking Code of Conduct, Government regulatory acts as set down by law in the Republic of South Africa.
(c) To pay the applicants claim in reconvention dated 24 day of November 2011 an Annexure hereto attached as (A) for the sum of (four million and six hundred thousand rand with interest as claimed.)
(d) Costs of suit.’
 The application which is opposed by the first respondent was subsequently also opposed by the second respondent, pursuant to an application to intervene, which was initially enrolled for hearing on 29 November 2016. On that date, Moodley J issued orders in which the main application was adjourned sine die, and issued directives for the filing of affidavits in the application to intervene as well as the main application. The applicant opposed the application to intervene by First Rand Bank Limited.
 When the intervention application served before me on 17 March 2017, the applicant consented to First Rand Bank Limited intervening in these proceedings. Further orders were issued by consent, the effect of which was to render the main application ripe for hearing as an opposed motion.
 I must make mention of the fact that even though the applicant did not file an affidavit in opposition to First Rand Bank Limited intervening, I was satisfied that the second respondent had established that it had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation and was entitled to intervene despite the notice of opposition by the applicant. The nature of the relief which the applicant sought impacted directly on the second respondent and it was entitled to intervene in these proceedings.
Naidu v Reserve Bank of the Republic of South Africa and Another (9898/2016)  ZAKZDHC 250.15 MB