Lumka v BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023)
The court found that the applicant had ample opportunity to comply with the previous court order to file a practice note and list of authorities but failed to do so. The late filing was considered a delaying tactic and not a valid reason to postpone the matter. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 641
- Parties
- Applicant: Mzwandile Lumka; Respondent: BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sheriff Benoni NO
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 5301/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Dismissal of Rescission Application
- Outcome
- Rescission application dismissed.
- Judges
- R Strydom
- Legal Topics
- Rescission Application, Failure to Comply With Court Order, Practice Note Filing, Dismissal of Application
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mzwandile Lumka
Applicant
BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Sheriff Benoni NO
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Dismissal of Rescission Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's rescission application should be dismissed for failure to comply with a previous court order.
- 2 Whether the late filing of the practice note and list of authorities constitutes a valid reason to postpone the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had ample opportunity to comply with the previous court order to file a practice note and list of authorities but failed to do so. The late filing was considered a delaying tactic and not a valid reason to postpone the matter. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the rescission application, refusing to allow further postponement or enrolment on the opposed roll.
Court Disposition
Rescission application dismissed.
Orders
- The rescission application is dismissed.
- Order granted in terms of the amended draft order marked with an X.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 5301/2021
In the matter between:
MZWANDILE LUMKA Applicant and BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES SA (PTY) First Respondent SHERIFF BENONI NO Second Respondent
Neutral Citation: Mzwandile Lumka vs BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (Case No. 5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023)
JUDGMENT
STRYDOM, J
[1] This is an application in which the first respondent, BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd asks for a rescission application previously brought by the applicant to be dismissed.
[2] The reason why the first respondent set this application down for hearing in the unopposed court is because previously a court order was granted in terms of which the applicant, Mr. Lumka, was placed on terms to file a practice note and a list of authorities within a certain time period.
[3] That time period has long gone. What then transpired when this application was now heard for the dismissal of the rescission application due to failure to comply with a court order some kind of practice note and list of authorities were filed last night.
[4] That is many days out of time. What the applicant now request from this court is not to deal with the dismissal of the rescission application currently before me but to allow the rescission application to be heard on an opposed basis. The Court considered all the circumstances and the lateness of the practice note and list of authority filed late and concluded that this is just a delaying tactic to delay an order to be granted in terms of the main application which is for the return of a motor vehicle which was financed by BMW Financial Services and in terms of which payment of approximately R20 000.00 was to be made on a monthly basis. Payment was not made in terms of the agreement.
[5] The Court is not going to let the matter be postponed further by allowing it to be enrolled on the opposed roll for hearing of the opposed rescission application.
[6] My view is that Mr Lumka, the applicant in the rescission application, had ample opportunity to comply with the previous court order to file his practice note and list of authorities and he failed to do so. The order the Court will make in terms of the draft order will come down to an order that the rescission application is dismissed.
[7] I make the order in terms of the draft order as amended which I will mark with an X. That is the order of the Court.
R STRYDOM, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
For the Applicant: Adv. L. Pearce Instructed by: Thomson Wilks Inc For the First Respondent: Adv. E.M. Tshole Instructed by: Tshepo Mohapi Attorneys For the Second Respondent: Unknown Instructed by: Unknown
Date of hearing: 08 May 2023
Date of Judgment: 08 May 202