Mamba Strike Force CC v Sheriff Germiston North N.O. and Others (2019/14264) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1372 (24 November 2023)

Mamba Strike Force CC v Sheriff Germiston North N.O. and Others (2019/14264) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1372 (24 November 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to identify the judgment sought to be rescinded and did not establish a legal basis for rescission under Rule 31, Rule 42, or the common law. The Adjudicator's determination, once filed with the Registrar, became a civil judgment by operation of law, and the applicant did not challenge it within the prescribed period or exhaust internal remedies. The applicant's conduct was unreasonable, including ignoring demands, failing to comply with orders, and delaying payment for over four years. The application for rescission was dismissed, and a punitive costs order was granted against the applicant.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1372
Parties
Applicant: Mamba Strike Force CC; Respondent: Sheriff Germiston North N.O.; Respondent: Alfred Mathye; Respondent: The Private Security Sector Provident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2023
Case Number
2019/14264
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Civil Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.
Judges
P Stais
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Pension Funds Act, Internal Remedies Exhaustion, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Labour Law Rescission of Judgment Pension Funds Act Internal Remedies Exhaustion 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamba Strike Force CC

Applicant

Sheriff Germiston North N.O.

Respondent

Alfred Mathye

Respondent

The Private Security Sector Provident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Civil Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant identified the judgment sought to be rescinded with sufficient clarity.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a legal basis for rescission under Rule 31, Rule 42, or the common law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant exhausted internal remedies before approaching the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to identify the judgment sought to be rescinded and did not establish a legal basis for rescission under Rule 31, Rule 42, or the common law. The Adjudicator's determination, once filed with the Registrar, became a civil judgment by operation of law, and the applicant did not challenge it within the prescribed period or exhaust internal remedies. The applicant's conduct was unreasonable, including ignoring demands, failing to comply with orders, and delaying payment for over four years. The application for rescission was dismissed, and a punitive costs order was granted against the applicant.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.