Luniko Security and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Luniko Security and Cleaning Services v First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (672/2019, 674/2019, 675/20) [2020] ZAECGHC 27 (10 March 2020)

Luniko Security and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Luniko Security and Cleaning Services v First Rand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (672/2019, 674/2019, 675/20) [2020] ZAECGHC 27 (10 March 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for its default, as the summons were served at its chosen domicilium citandi and no explanation was offered for non-receipt. The applicant did not advance any bona fide defence to the respondent's claims, conceding that it was not always...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Luniko Security and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Luniko Security and Cleaning Services; Respondent: FirstRand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2020
Case Number
672/2019, 674/2019, 675/20
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgments
Outcome
The applications for rescission of the three default judgments are dismissed with costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Instalment Sale Agreement, National Credit Act, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Instalment Sale Agreement National Credit Act Service of Process

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luniko Security and Cleaning Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Luniko Security and Cleaning Services

Applicant

FirstRand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for its default in failing to defend the actions.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant acted bona fide in bringing the rescission applications.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the respondent's claims under the instalment sale agreements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any reasonable explanation for its default, as the summons were served at its chosen domicilium citandi and no explanation was offered for non-receipt. The applicant did not advance any bona fide defence to the respondent's claims, conceding that it was not always able to meet its payment obligations and relied on being awarded tenders. The terms of the instalment sale agreements were clear regarding payment obligations and consequences of breach. The applicant, being a juristic person, was not entitled to rely on the Section 129 notice requirements. The court was not persuaded that the requirements for rescission were met and dismissed...

Court Disposition

The applications for rescission of the three default judgments are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The three applications for rescission are dismissed with costs.