Lesotho Nissan (Pty) Ltd v Katiso Makara (C of A (CIV) 72 of 2014) [2016] LSCA 20 (29 April 2016)

Lesotho Nissan (Pty) Ltd v Katiso Makara (C of A (CIV) 72 of 2014) [2016] LSCA 20 (29 April 2016)

The High Court erred in granting default judgment for unliquidated damages without hearing evidence and without giving notice to the barred defendant, and in refusing rescission based solely on delay without properly considering the explanation and prospects of success. The appellant established a bona fide defence and provided sufficient explanation for delay. Condonation for late filing of heads of argument is warranted due to strong prospects of success.

Citation
[2016] LSCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Lesotho Nissan (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Katiso Makara
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
29 April 2016
Case Number
C of A (CIV) 72 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Unliquidated Damages, Condonation of Late Filing
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Law Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment Unliquidated Damages Condonation of Late Filing

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesotho Nissan (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Katiso Makara

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing rescission of default judgment without hearing evidence on unliquidated damages
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in granting default judgment without notice to the barred defendant
  3. 3 Whether condonation for late filing of heads of argument should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court erred in granting default judgment for unliquidated damages without hearing evidence and without giving notice to the barred defendant, and in refusing rescission based solely on delay without properly considering the explanation and prospects of success. The appellant established a bona fide defence and provided sufficient explanation for delay. Condonation for late filing of heads of argument is warranted due to strong prospects of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Application for condonation for late filing of heads of argument is granted.
  • Appeal is upheld with costs.