Makhetha v SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd (17570/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 523 (23 May 2025)

Makhetha v SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd (17570/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 523 (23 May 2025)

The application for rescission was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any grounds for rescission. The evidence showed that service of the summons was properly effected, and the applicant was aware of the proceedings, having attended the default judgment hearing. The applicant did not dispute her indebtedness or the arrears, nor did she provide a bona fide defence or a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the rescission application. The respondent was entitled to enforce the mortgage bond and seek costs on an attorney and client scale as provided for in the agreement. The applicant's failure to participate in the proceedings, file a replying affidavit, or heads...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 523
Parties
Applicant: Refilwe Makhetha; Respondent: SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Lebohang Makhetha; Defendant: Refilwe Makhetha
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Case Number
17570/23
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
SG Maritz
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Service of Process, Attorney and Client Costs

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

Parties

Refilwe Makhetha

Applicant

SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

SB Guaranteed Company (RF) (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Lebohang Makhetha

Defendant

Refilwe Makhetha

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for rescission of the default judgment granted on 11 March 2024.
  2. 2 Whether service of summons was properly effected on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has provided a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for rescission was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish any grounds for rescission. The evidence showed that service of the summons was properly effected, and the applicant was aware of the proceedings, having attended the default judgment hearing. The applicant did not dispute her indebtedness or the arrears, nor did she provide a bona fide defence or a satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the rescission application. The respondent was entitled to enforce the mortgage bond and seek costs on an attorney and client scale as provided for in the agreement. The applicant's failure to participate in the proceedings, file a replying affidavit, or heads...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.