Fasser v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2020/31972) [2024] ZAGPJHC 113 (2 February 2024)

Fasser v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2020/31972) [2024] ZAGPJHC 113 (2 February 2024)

The application for rescission is dismissed because the court that granted the summary judgment was fully aware that the property was the applicant's primary residence. The applicant was informed of her constitutional rights and failed to place any facts before the court to oppose the order for execution. The application does not allege any bona fide defence to the respondent's claim, and the assertion that the applicant's attorney lacked a mandate is unsupported by affidavit evidence. The requirements for rescission under common law have not been met.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 113
Parties
Applicant: Fazlin Fasser (neé Sasman); Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2024
Case Number
2020/31972
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of summary judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
DT v R Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Summary Judgment, Primary Residence, Rule 46a, Common Law Rescission
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Summary Judgment Primary Residence Rule 46a Common Law Rescission

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fazlin Fasser (neé Sasman)

Applicant

The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment granted on 15 June 2022 should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the court was aware that the property was the applicant's primary residence when granting the summary judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established proper grounds for rescission under common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for rescission is dismissed because the court that granted the summary judgment was fully aware that the property was the applicant's primary residence. The applicant was informed of her constitutional rights and failed to place any facts before the court to oppose the order for execution. The application does not allege any bona fide defence to the respondent's claim, and the assertion that the applicant's attorney lacked a mandate is unsupported by affidavit evidence. The requirements for rescission under common law have not been met.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of summary judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the summary judgment granted on 15 June 2022 is dismissed with costs.