Estia Partnership v Jacobs (18998/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 351 (26 May 2022)

Estia Partnership v Jacobs (18998/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 351 (26 May 2022)

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for rescission by not filing the application within the prescribed period and neglecting to apply for condonation of the delay. No acceptable explanation for the delay was provided, nor was any bona fide defence to the respondent's counterclaim established. The applicant's absence from the hearing was deliberate, and its queries regarding the calculation of the amount awarded did not constitute a substantial defence. The judgment was not granted erroneously under rule 42(1), as no error on the record was identified. The court found the applicant wanting in every respect and dismissed both the condonation and rescission...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 351
Parties
Applicant: Estia Partnership; Respondent: Herman Jacobs
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2022
Case Number
18998/2016
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation and rescission dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Default Judgment, Rule 31 2 B, Rule 42 1
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Condonation Default Judgment Rule 31 2 B Rule 42 1

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Estia Partnership

Applicant

Herman Jacobs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for condonation of the late filing of the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the judgment was erroneously granted under rule 42(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements for rescission by not filing the application within the prescribed period and neglecting to apply for condonation of the delay. No acceptable explanation for the delay was provided, nor was any bona fide defence to the respondent's counterclaim established. The applicant's absence from the hearing was deliberate, and its queries regarding the calculation of the amount awarded did not constitute a substantial defence. The judgment was not granted erroneously under rule 42(1), as no error on the record was identified. The court found the applicant wanting in every respect and dismissed both the condonation and rescission...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and rescission dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for condonation is dismissed.
  • The application for rescission of the judgment of 18 October 2019 is dismissed.