DRS v VGS (M 283/2018) [2020] ZANWHC 82 (12 March 2020)

DRS v VGS (M 283/2018) [2020] ZANWHC 82 (12 March 2020)

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the excessive delay in filing the rescission application, and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The order appointing the receiver/liquidator was not erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicant, as service was properly effected and the applicant was aware of the proceedings. The argument regarding non-joinder of KM is unmeritorious, as KM has no vested interest in the property, which was registered in the applicant's name after his divorce from KM and before his marriage to the respondent. The respondent is entitled to a share in the joint estate, including the house, by virtue...

Citation
[2020] ZANWHC 82
Parties
Applicant: D[…] R[…] S[….]; Respondent: V[…] G[…] S[….]
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Case Number
M 283/2018
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Order Appointing Receiver/liquidator
Outcome
Application for rescission of the order/judgment appointing receiver/liquidator is dismissed with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Appointment of Receiver, Division of Joint Estate, Condonation, Non Joinder, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Family and Children Rescission of Judgment Appointment of Receiver Division of Joint Estate Condonation Non Joinder Costs Order

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D[…] R[…] S[….]

Applicant

V[…] G[…] S[….]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Order Appointing Receiver/liquidator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the order appointing a receiver/liquidator.
  2. 2 Whether the order was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicant under Rule 42(1)(a).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory and detailed explanation for the excessive delay in filing the rescission application, and did not demonstrate reasonable prospects of success. The order appointing the receiver/liquidator was not erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicant, as service was properly effected and the applicant was aware of the proceedings. The argument regarding non-joinder of KM is unmeritorious, as KM has no vested interest in the property, which was registered in the applicant's name after his divorce from KM and before his marriage to the respondent. The respondent is entitled to a share in the joint estate, including the house, by virtue...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of the order/judgment appointing receiver/liquidator is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order/judgment granted on 27 September 2018 is dismissed.
  • The applicant (D[…] R[…] S[…]) is ordered to pay the costs of this rescission application.