Khunou v Sebesho and Another In re: Sebesho v Khunou and Another (24798/17) [2021] ZAGPJHC 429 (13 September 2021)

Khunou v Sebesho and Another In re: Sebesho v Khunou and Another (24798/17) [2021] ZAGPJHC 429 (13 September 2021)

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in launching the rescission application and demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter, namely her home, which she claims as sole heir. The exception to the second motion was properly filed and opposed, indicating that the matter was not unopposed. The court held that the order was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the applicant, as the exception was still to be argued and the applicant was denied an opportunity to be heard. The applicant was entitled to condonation for the late filing, and the rescission of the order was warranted to allow the matter to be properly...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 429
Parties
Applicant: JA Khunou (Known as Mofedi, Maki); Respondent: PK Sebesho; Respondent: Master of the High Court (Johannesburg)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2021
Case Number
24798/17
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Granted on 22 August 2019
Outcome
Application for condonation and rescission granted. The order of 22 August 2019 is rescinded. Costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
Mahomed AJ
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42 Application, Letters of Authority, Deceased Estate Procedure, Condonation, Exception Procedure

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

JA Khunou (Known as Mofedi, Maki)

Applicant

PK Sebesho

Respondent

Master of the High Court (Johannesburg)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Granted on 22 August 2019

  1. 1 Whether the order granted on 22 August 2019 was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in launching the rescission application and demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter, namely her home, which she claims as sole heir. The exception to the second motion was properly filed and opposed, indicating that the matter was not unopposed. The court held that the order was erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the applicant, as the exception was still to be argued and the applicant was denied an opportunity to be heard. The applicant was entitled to condonation for the late filing, and the rescission of the order was warranted to allow the matter to be properly...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and rescission granted. The order of 22 August 2019 is rescinded. Costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The late filing of this application is condoned.
  • The order granted on 22 August 2019 is rescinded.