Gare v Royal Bafokeng Economic Board (70/07) [2011] ZANWHC 74 (22 December 2011)

Gare v Royal Bafokeng Economic Board (70/07) [2011] ZANWHC 74 (22 December 2011)

The court found that the applicant's failure to tender inspection of documents and oppose the Rule 30A application was not fully explained, and that both the applicant's attorney and manager contributed to the default. However, the applicant's conduct did not directly cause the order to be granted. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting the absence of irreversible prejudice to the defendants if the judgment was rescinded. The court granted condonation for the late filing of the application, rescinded the default judgment, and suspended execution processes. Costs of opposition were awarded against the applicant's attorney de bonis propriis due to the...

Citation
[2011] ZANWHC 74
Parties
Applicant: William Lucky Gare; Respondent: Royal Bafokeng Economic Board
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 December 2011
Case Number
70/07
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded; costs awarded against applicant's attorney de bonis propriis.
Judges
A A Landman
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Good Cause, Rule 30a, Default Judgment, Condonation
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Good Cause Rule 30a Default Judgment Condonation

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Lucky Gare

Applicant

Royal Bafokeng Economic Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's failure to tender inspection of documents and oppose the Rule 30A application is excusable.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the applicant's attorney and manager justifies rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's failure to tender inspection of documents and oppose the Rule 30A application was not fully explained, and that both the applicant's attorney and manager contributed to the default. However, the applicant's conduct did not directly cause the order to be granted. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicant, noting the absence of irreversible prejudice to the defendants if the judgment was rescinded. The court granted condonation for the late filing of the application, rescinded the default judgment, and suspended execution processes. Costs of opposition were awarded against the applicant's attorney de bonis propriis due to the...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded; costs awarded against applicant's attorney de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of this application is granted.
  • The order granted on 12 February 2009 is rescinded and the applicant is granted 10 days from the date of this order to file an answering affidavit.