Lodi and Another v ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited and Another (2022-003946) [2025] ZAGPPHC 731 (21 July 2025)

Lodi and Another v ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited and Another (2022-003946) [2025] ZAGPPHC 731 (21 July 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as the urgency was self-created through their own and their legal representatives' lack of diligence. The court emphasized that litigants cannot indefinitely escape the consequences of their attorneys' failures. The application was deemed an abuse of the urgent court process, and the matter was struck from the roll with costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 731
Parties
Applicant: Barend Tati Lodi; Applicant: Lillian Sebola; Respondent: ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
2022-003946
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Recission Application and Appeal
Outcome
Application struck from the roll due to lack of sufficient urgency. Costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Ferreira
Legal Topics
Urgency, Recission of Judgment, Abuse of Process, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Urgency Recission of Judgment Abuse of Process Costs on Attorney and Client Scale

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barend Tati Lodi

Applicant

Lillian Sebola

Applicant

ABSA Home Loans Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Pending Recission Application and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for interim relief should be heard as urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established sufficient urgency to justify approaching the court on an urgent basis.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief pending the finalization of the recission application and appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as the urgency was self-created through their own and their legal representatives' lack of diligence. The court emphasized that litigants cannot indefinitely escape the consequences of their attorneys' failures. The application was deemed an abuse of the urgent court process, and the matter was struck from the roll with costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll due to lack of sufficient urgency. Costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll due to lack of sufficient urgency.
  • The first and second applicant, the one paying, the other to be absolved, is to pay the first and second respondent's costs on an attorney and client scale.