Kombech and Another v Nedbank Limited and Others (74905/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 451 (2 August 2017)

Kombech and Another v Nedbank Limited and Others (74905/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 451 (2 August 2017)

The court found that the applicants failed to set out the basis for their rescission application, whether under common law, rule 42(1)(a), or rule 32(1)(b). The evidence showed that service of summons was properly effected at the applicants' domicilium address and received by a person residing there. The applicants did not advance any submissions regarding good cause, nor did they demonstrate a prima facie case or bona fide defence with prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 451
Parties
Applicant: Patience Thoko Kombech; Applicant: Donald Musa Kombech; Respondent: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Sheriff, Tembisa; Respondent: Deeds Office Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2017
Case Number
74905/2015
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hughes
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Special Executability, Bond Enforcement
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Service of Process Special Executability Bond Enforcement

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

Parties

Patience Thoko Kombech

Applicant

Donald Musa Kombech

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Sheriff, Tembisa

Respondent

Deeds Office Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for rescission of the judgment granted on 5 November 2015.
  2. 2 Whether service of summons was properly effected at the applicants' domicilium address.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to set out the basis for their rescission application, whether under common law, rule 42(1)(a), or rule 32(1)(b). The evidence showed that service of summons was properly effected at the applicants' domicilium address and received by a person residing there. The applicants did not advance any submissions regarding good cause, nor did they demonstrate a prima facie case or bona fide defence with prospects of success. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.