Livingstone v Nedbank (3066/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 353 (29 April 2025)

Livingstone v Nedbank (3066/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 353 (29 April 2025)

The court found that the applicant's attorney's unilateral attempt to remove the matter from the roll was irregular and void ab initio, as it did not comply with the applicable practice directives and conventions. The attorney failed to properly raise counsel's unavailability or request a specific hearing date in accordance with the directives. The conduct was particularly concerning given previous similar conduct by the same attorney, which had been criticized in Seripe v Swanepoel NO and Others. However, the court declined to proceed with the matter in the applicant's absence due to incomplete papers and missing affidavits on the caselines profile, making it impossible to determine the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 353
Parties
Applicant: Lowane Hanyani Livingstone; Respondent: Nedbank
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2025
Case Number
3066/2019
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment; Hearing Set Down, Applicant in Default, Matter Postponed Sine Die
Outcome
Application postponed sine die; notice of removal set aside as void ab initio; costs reserved; applicant's attorney ordered to provide reasons regarding costs de bonis propriis.
Judges
JF Grobler
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Practice Directives, Attorney Conduct, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Practice Directives Attorney Conduct Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lowane Hanyani Livingstone

Applicant

Nedbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment; Hearing Set Down, Applicant in Default, Matter Postponed Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's attorney's unilateral removal of the matter from the roll was permissible and valid.
  2. 2 Whether the matter could proceed in the absence of the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether wasted costs should be awarded de bonis propriis against the applicant's attorney.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's attorney's unilateral attempt to remove the matter from the roll was irregular and void ab initio, as it did not comply with the applicable practice directives and conventions. The attorney failed to properly raise counsel's unavailability or request a specific hearing date in accordance with the directives. The conduct was particularly concerning given previous similar conduct by the same attorney, which had been criticized in Seripe v Swanepoel NO and Others. However, the court declined to proceed with the matter in the applicant's absence due to incomplete papers and missing affidavits on the caselines profile, making it impossible to determine the...

Court Disposition

Application postponed sine die; notice of removal set aside as void ab initio; costs reserved; applicant's attorney ordered to provide reasons regarding costs de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The Notice of Removal filed by the Applicant's attorney of record (TL Seelepe Attorneys) dated 23 April 2025 is set aside as being void ab initio.
  • The application is postponed sine die.