Khambule and Another v Registrar of Banks In re: Registrar of Banks v Khambule and Others (256009/14) [2017] ZAGPJHC 414 (17 November 2017)

Khambule and Another v Registrar of Banks In re: Registrar of Banks v Khambule and Others (256009/14) [2017] ZAGPJHC 414 (17 November 2017)

The court found that the final sequestration order was not granted by default, as the applicants had filed opposing papers and were aware of the hearing date. Their absence was due to their own failure to instruct local counsel after being expressly warned. Rule 42(1) did not apply, as there was no error in the granting of the order. Rule 31(2)(b) and the common law were also inapplicable, as the order was not granted by default. The rescission application was brought out of time and was incompetent. The applicants' attorney repeatedly disregarded court rules and directives, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis propriis. The probable motive for the rescission application was to...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 414
Parties
Applicant: Fudi Abram Khambule; Applicant: Happy Nombulele Khambule; Respondent: Registrar of Banks; Respondent: TVI Travel and Marketing Agency CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Case Number
256009/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Final Sequestration Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys of record.
Judges
L.T. Modiba
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Rescission of Judgment, Unlawful Deposit Taking, Pyramid Scheme, Default Judgment, Punitive Costs
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Sequestration Rescission of Judgment Unlawful Deposit Taking Pyramid Scheme Default Judgment Punitive 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fudi Abram Khambule

Applicant

Happy Nombulele Khambule

Applicant

Registrar of Banks

Respondent

TVI Travel and Marketing Agency CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Final Sequestration Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the final sequestration order granted in the absence of the applicants is rescindable under rule 42(1) or rule 31(2)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' attorney's conduct warrants a punitive costs order de bonis propriis.
  3. 3 Whether the rescission application was brought within the prescribed time and on competent grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the final sequestration order was not granted by default, as the applicants had filed opposing papers and were aware of the hearing date. Their absence was due to their own failure to instruct local counsel after being expressly warned. Rule 42(1) did not apply, as there was no error in the granting of the order. Rule 31(2)(b) and the common law were also inapplicable, as the order was not granted by default. The rescission application was brought out of time and was incompetent. The applicants' attorney repeatedly disregarded court rules and directives, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis propriis. The probable motive for the rescission application was to...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys of record.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicant's attorneys of record on the attorney and client scale.
  • The costs shall include the costs of two counsel where so employed.