Epiphanyi IT Training and Advisory (Pty) Ltd v Moben South Africa (6806/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 115 (27 March 2019)

Epiphanyi IT Training and Advisory (Pty) Ltd v Moben South Africa (6806/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 115 (27 March 2019)

The application for rescission failed because the default judgment was granted in open court, not by the registrar, making Rule 31(5)(d) inapplicable. Service of summons was validly effected at the Applicant's registered address, as required by the Uniform Rules and the Companies Act. The Applicant's failure to update its registered address with the CIPC does not render service invalid. Furthermore, the Applicant was not permitted to amend its case or introduce new grounds for rescission in its replying affidavit. The court found no merit in the Applicant's arguments and dismissed the application with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 115
Parties
Applicant: Epiphanyi IT Training and Advisory (Pty) Ltd T/A Freewi Technologies; Respondent: Moben South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Case Number
6806/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.L. Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Amendment of Affidavit
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Jurisdiction Amendment of Affidavit

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Epiphanyi IT Training and Advisory (Pty) Ltd T/A Freewi Technologies

Applicant

Moben South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judgment granted in open court is susceptible to reconsideration under Rule 31(5)(d).
  2. 2 Whether there was proper service of summons on the Applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the issues pleaded in the Respondent's particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for rescission failed because the default judgment was granted in open court, not by the registrar, making Rule 31(5)(d) inapplicable. Service of summons was validly effected at the Applicant's registered address, as required by the Uniform Rules and the Companies Act. The Applicant's failure to update its registered address with the CIPC does not render service invalid. Furthermore, the Applicant was not permitted to amend its case or introduce new grounds for rescission in its replying affidavit. The court found no merit in the Applicant's arguments and dismissed the application with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs.