IDL Transport CC t/a Old Fashioned Fish and Chips and Others v Soleprops 39 (Pty) Ltd (38854/2013) [2018] ZAGPPHC 771 (13 February 2018)
The applicants failed to show good cause for rescission of the default judgment. Although they claimed to have misunderstood the trial date, they did not disclose that the corrected notice of set down for 4 June 2015 was served on them personally. Their failure to file a replying affidavit left the respondent's averments unchallenged. The lease agreement placed responsibility for maintenance and repair of the interior, including the ceiling, on the applicants. The only cause advanced for the inability to trade was the collapsed ceiling, which was attributed to the applicants' contractors. Clause 17(c) of the lease provided for remission of rent, not cancellation, in the event of partial...
- Citation
- [2018] ZAGPPHC 771
- Parties
- Applicant: IDL Transport CC t/a Old Fashioned Fish and Chips; Applicant: Rose Thoko Mahlangu; Applicant: Isaac Nsebenzi Mahlangu; Respondent: Soleprops 39 (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2018
- Case Number
- 38854/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
- Outcome
- Application for rescission dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
- Judges
- A A Crutchfield
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Lease Agreement, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement, Remission of Rent
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
IDL Transport CC t/a Old Fashioned Fish and Chips
Applicant
Rose Thoko Mahlangu
Applicant
Isaac Nsebenzi Mahlangu
Applicant
Soleprops 39 (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
- 2 Whether the applicants were in wilful default in failing to attend court on the correct date.
- 3 Whether the applicants have a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim under the lease agreement.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants failed to show good cause for rescission of the default judgment. Although they claimed to have misunderstood the trial date, they did not disclose that the corrected notice of set down for 4 June 2015 was served on them personally. Their failure to file a replying affidavit left the respondent's averments unchallenged. The lease agreement placed responsibility for maintenance and repair of the interior, including the ceiling, on the applicants. The only cause advanced for the inability to trade was the collapsed ceiling, which was attributed to the applicants' contractors. Clause 17(c) of the lease provided for remission of rent, not cancellation, in the event of partial...
Court Disposition
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
Orders
- The application for rescission is dismissed.
- Costs are awarded against the applicants on a party and party scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment