Jordaan v Blue Dot Properties 310 (Pty) Ltd (934/2010) [2014] ZAECPEHC 73 (28 October 2014)

Jordaan v Blue Dot Properties 310 (Pty) Ltd (934/2010) [2014] ZAECPEHC 73 (28 October 2014)

The court found that the applicant was aware of the proceedings and service of summons, as evidenced by his own email and the confirmatory affidavit of his former wife. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his default and did not file a replying affidavit to the respondent's comprehensive answering affidavit. The court held that the applicant did not have a bona fide defence, as the particulars of claim did disclose a cause of action and the suspensive conditions were met. The application for rescission was not bona fide but intended to delay the respondent's claim. Accordingly, the judgment was not granted erroneously and the requirements for rescission were not...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 73
Parties
Applicant: Andrew Charles Jordaan; Respondent: Blue Dot Properties 310 (Pty) Ltd
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2014
Case Number
934/2010
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Bona Fide Defence, Rule 31 2 B, Rule 42 1, Service of Summons
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Bona Fide Defence Rule 31 2 B Rule 42 1 Service of Summons

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

Parties

Andrew Charles Jordaan

Applicant

Blue Dot Properties 310 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was aware of the proceedings and service of summons prior to the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was granted erroneously due to lack of notice to the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim based on non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was aware of the proceedings and service of summons, as evidenced by his own email and the confirmatory affidavit of his former wife. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his default and did not file a replying affidavit to the respondent's comprehensive answering affidavit. The court held that the applicant did not have a bona fide defence, as the particulars of claim did disclose a cause of action and the suspensive conditions were met. The application for rescission was not bona fide but intended to delay the respondent's claim. Accordingly, the judgment was not granted erroneously and the requirements for rescission were not...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the judgment granted on 3 June 2010 is dismissed with costs.