Makhuba and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (38239/2013) [2018] ZAGPJHC 53 (26 March 2018)

Makhuba and Others v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (38239/2013) [2018] ZAGPJHC 53 (26 March 2018)

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default in not appearing at the hearing. The evidence shows that their attorney was aware of the hearing date through multiple communications and service attempts by the City, including facsimile and direct contact. The applicants did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 53
Parties
Applicant: TT Makhuba; Applicant: M Makhuba; Applicant: The Unity Fellowship Church; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2018
Case Number
38239/2013
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
R M Keightley
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Procedural Fairness

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TT Makhuba

Applicant

M Makhuba

Applicant

The Unity Fellowship Church

Applicant

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default in failing to appear at the hearing.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a bona fide defence with prospects of success on the merits.
  3. 3 Whether the rescission application meets the requirements under rule 42(1)(a) or the common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for their default in not appearing at the hearing. The evidence shows that their attorney was aware of the hearing date through multiple communications and service attempts by the City, including facsimile and direct contact. The applicants did not file a replying affidavit to counter the City's detailed account, nor did they explain their absence. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success. Their review application was instituted well outside the statutory time limit prescribed by PAJA, and their allegations of procedural unfairness and prejudice were not...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.