Labstix Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd and Another v SDV South Africa (Pty) Ltd (91624/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 380 (17 May 2018)

Labstix Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd and Another v SDV South Africa (Pty) Ltd (91624/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 380 (17 May 2018)

The court found that the applicants' affidavits resisting summary judgment were before the court at the time of the summary judgment hearing. The absence of the applicants or their legal representatives did not render the judgment a default judgment. Established case law holds that where opposing affidavits have been filed, the court must consider them, and the defendant is not in default. Therefore, an application for rescission is not the appropriate remedy; the proper course is to seek leave to appeal. The application for rescission was dismissed as the procedure was improper.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 380
Parties
Applicant: Labstix Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jacobus Grobler; Respondent: SDV South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Case Number
91624/2016
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
G Nel
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court, Jurisdictional Objection
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Jurisdictional Objection

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Labstix Diagnostics (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jacobus Grobler

Applicant

SDV South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment granted on 26 April 2017 was a default judgment susceptible to rescission.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' affidavits resisting summary judgment were before the court at the time of judgment.
  3. 3 Whether rescission of judgment is the appropriate remedy when opposing affidavits have been filed but no appearance is made at the hearing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' affidavits resisting summary judgment were before the court at the time of the summary judgment hearing. The absence of the applicants or their legal representatives did not render the judgment a default judgment. Established case law holds that where opposing affidavits have been filed, the court must consider them, and the defendant is not in default. Therefore, an application for rescission is not the appropriate remedy; the proper course is to seek leave to appeal. The application for rescission was dismissed as the procedure was improper.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed; costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, are to pay the costs of the application.