Mailula and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa and Another (11294/2012) [2018] ZAGPPHC 488 (5 July 2018)

Mailula and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa and Another (11294/2012) [2018] ZAGPPHC 488 (5 July 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any proper or detailed explanation for the delay in seeking condonation, and thus did not show good cause for condonation. Regarding rescission under Rule 42, the applicants did not establish any factual basis or evidence of irregularity, error, or material fact that would render the judgment erroneously sought or granted. The court concluded that the judgment was lawfully obtained, all procedural requirements were met, and no bona fide defence was demonstrated. Consequently, both the application for condonation and the application for rescission were dismissed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 488
Parties
Applicant: Nelson Morwamabitji Mailula; Applicant: Sarah Mailula; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Tshabalal Praiselord Thamsanqa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2018
Case Number
11294/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation
Outcome
Application for rescission of judgment and condonation dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maluleke AJ
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Mortgage Bond, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Condonation Mortgage Bond Rule 42 Uniform Rules 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Morwamabitji Mailula

Applicant

Sarah Mailula

Applicant

The Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Tshabalal Praiselord Thamsanqa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for condonation of the late filing of the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment granted on 12 June 2012 was erroneously sought or granted under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a bona fide defence to the claim of the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide any proper or detailed explanation for the delay in seeking condonation, and thus did not show good cause for condonation. Regarding rescission under Rule 42, the applicants did not establish any factual basis or evidence of irregularity, error, or material fact that would render the judgment erroneously sought or granted. The court concluded that the judgment was lawfully obtained, all procedural requirements were met, and no bona fide defence was demonstrated. Consequently, both the application for condonation and the application for rescission were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of judgment and condonation dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of judgment in terms of Rule 42 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs occasioned by the employment of counsel.