Majola and Another v Investage 183 (Pty) Limited and Another (2023/050639) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1260 (6 December 2024)

Majola and Another v Investage 183 (Pty) Limited and Another (2023/050639) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1260 (6 December 2024)

The court found that the applicant's absence from the underlying proceedings was not excusable under rule 42(1)(a), as it resulted from an election not to participate, whether by misunderstanding or lack of funds. The distinction sought by the applicant between deliberate absence and mistaken understanding was rejected, with reference to the Constitutional Court's decision in Zuma. On the merits, the court held that the lease agreement did not preclude a claim for common law damages calculated by reference to the outstanding rental period, and the respondent was entitled to default judgment on a liquidated claim. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1260
Parties
Applicant: Thulani Makhosi Majola; Applicant: Lesedi Technical Engineering (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Investage 183 (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sheriff, Sandton North
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2024
Case Number
2023/050639
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C.
Judges
C Todd
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Contractual Damages, Lease Agreement, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Condonation for Late Filing Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment Contractual Damages Lease Agreement Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulani Makhosi Majola

Applicant

Lesedi Technical Engineering (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Investage 183 (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Sheriff, Sandton North

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's absence from the underlying proceedings was excusable and fell outside the ambit of the Constitutional Court's decision in Zuma.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success in challenging the default judgment and the calculation of damages under the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's absence from the underlying proceedings was not excusable under rule 42(1)(a), as it resulted from an election not to participate, whether by misunderstanding or lack of funds. The distinction sought by the applicant between deliberate absence and mistaken understanding was rejected, with reference to the Constitutional Court's decision in Zuma. On the merits, the court held that the lease agreement did not preclude a claim for common law damages calculated by reference to the outstanding rental period, and the respondent was entitled to default judgment on a liquidated claim. The applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel on scale C.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late delivery of the application for leave to appeal.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, on the High Court scale C.