Kekana v Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O (77025/2009) [2018] ZAGPPHC 726 (23 February 2018)

Kekana v Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O (77025/2009) [2018] ZAGPPHC 726 (23 February 2018)

The application for rescission was dismissed primarily due to non-joinder of parties with a direct and substantial interest, namely the purchaser and the Sheriff, which is fatal to the application. Additionally, the grounds advanced by the applicant were found to be without merit: the affidavit supporting default judgment was correctly deposed to by Fatima Adam, not the person alleged by the applicant; the section 129 notice was properly delivered and the applicant failed to rebut this; there was no evidence of cession or securitization of the bond; and the respondent provided sufficient documentation disproving allegations of reckless credit. The applicant failed to comply with...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 726
Parties
Applicant: Kathleen Mapula Kekana; Respondent: Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Case Number
77025/2009
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
Petersen
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Section 129 Notice, Locus Standi, Reckless Credit, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Section 129 Notice Locus Standi Reckless Credit Joinder of Parties

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Mapula Kekana

Applicant

Changing Tides 17 (Proprietary) Limited N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / 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 complied with the procedural requirements for rescission under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) and (b).
  3. 3 Whether the section 129 notice was properly delivered to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for rescission was dismissed primarily due to non-joinder of parties with a direct and substantial interest, namely the purchaser and the Sheriff, which is fatal to the application. Additionally, the grounds advanced by the applicant were found to be without merit: the affidavit supporting default judgment was correctly deposed to by Fatima Adam, not the person alleged by the applicant; the section 129 notice was properly delivered and the applicant failed to rebut this; there was no evidence of cession or securitization of the bond; and the respondent provided sufficient documentation disproving allegations of reckless credit. The applicant failed to comply with...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs.