Hlangu's 86 Trading Enterprises CC v Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services (2022-015113) [2025] ZAGPPHC 90 (3 February 2025)

Hlangu's 86 Trading Enterprises CC v Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services (2022-015113) [2025] ZAGPPHC 90 (3 February 2025)

The applicant failed to provide any explanation for its delay in filing a plea and did not set out any defence to the respondent's claims. The technical objections regarding service of the notice of bar were without merit, as service by email was agreed and properly effected. The application for uplifting the bar was made solely to delay the respondent's claim and lacked substantive grounds. The court cannot rewrite the parties' contract or grant relief based on the applicant's future prospects of payment. Accordingly, the application for uplifting the bar was dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 90
Parties
Applicant: Hlangu's 86 Trading Enterprises CC; Respondent: Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2025
Case Number
2022-015113
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Uplift Bar and Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for uplifting the bar dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Upliftment of Bar, Default Judgment, Installment Sale Agreement, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Upliftment of Bar Default Judgment Installment Sale Agreement Attorney and Client Costs

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hlangu's 86 Trading Enterprises CC

Applicant

Man Financial Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Man Financial Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Uplift Bar and Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for the uplifting of the bar.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of bar was properly served on the applicant's attorney.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided any defence to the respondent's claims.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide any explanation for its delay in filing a plea and did not set out any defence to the respondent's claims. The technical objections regarding service of the notice of bar were without merit, as service by email was agreed and properly effected. The application for uplifting the bar was made solely to delay the respondent's claim and lacked substantive grounds. The court cannot rewrite the parties' contract or grant relief based on the applicant's future prospects of payment. Accordingly, the application for uplifting the bar was dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application for uplifting the bar dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for the uplifting of the bar is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.