Lopes v Standard Bank of South Africa (69686/09) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1008 (19 August 2015)

Lopes v Standard Bank of South Africa (69686/09) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1008 (19 August 2015)

The court found that the respondent had properly effected service at the applicant's chosen domicilium addresses, and that the applicant's account was in arrears at the time judgment was granted. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking rescission and did not demonstrate any procedural irregularity or error in the granting of the judgment. The alleged excessive charges were properly explained as accumulated interest, and the applicant did not establish a basis for rescission or recovery of those amounts. The application for rescission was dismissed as the judgment was procedurally correct and not erroneously granted.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1008
Parties
Applicant: Emilia Lucille Sussana Lopes; Respondent: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 August 2015
Case Number
69686/09
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
W Hughes
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Domicilium Address, National Credit Act, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Service of Process Domicilium Address National Credit Act Default Judgment

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emilia Lucille Sussana Lopes

Applicant

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the section 129 notice and summons was properly effected at the applicant's chosen domicilium addresses.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment granted against the applicant was erroneously granted due to the account not being in arrears.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to recover alleged excessive charges levied against her account.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had properly effected service at the applicant's chosen domicilium addresses, and that the applicant's account was in arrears at the time judgment was granted. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in seeking rescission and did not demonstrate any procedural irregularity or error in the granting of the judgment. The alleged excessive charges were properly explained as accumulated interest, and the applicant did not establish a basis for rescission or recovery of those amounts. The application for rescission was dismissed as the judgment was procedurally correct and not erroneously granted.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.