Mangolele v ABSA Bank Limited (228/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 329 (20 May 2022)

Mangolele v ABSA Bank Limited (228/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 329 (20 May 2022)

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish that the summary judgment was erroneously sought or granted. The evidence showed that the applicant's account was in arrears at the time the judgment was entered and that the agreement was cancelled before the arrears were settled. Payments made after cancellation could not reinstate the agreement under section 129(3) and (4) of the National Credit Act, as confirmed by the Nkata judgment. The applicant's explanation for the delay in bringing the application was not entirely satisfactory, but condonation was granted in the interests of justice. However, on the merits, the applicant was not entitled to rescission as the requirements of...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 329
Parties
Applicant: Famanda Eric Mangolele; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2022
Case Number
228/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Application for Rescission Under Rule 42(1)(a)
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed; condonation for lateness granted; costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Collis
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Summary Judgment, National Credit Act, Condonation, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Summary Judgment National Credit Act Condonation 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Famanda Eric Mangolele

Applicant

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Application for Rescission Under Rule 42(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment granted on 2 August 2018 was erroneously sought or granted in terms of Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant remedied the arrears before cancellation of the agreement under section 129(3) and (4) of the National Credit Act.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the rescission application should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to establish that the summary judgment was erroneously sought or granted. The evidence showed that the applicant's account was in arrears at the time the judgment was entered and that the agreement was cancelled before the arrears were settled. Payments made after cancellation could not reinstate the agreement under section 129(3) and (4) of the National Credit Act, as confirmed by the Nkata judgment. The applicant's explanation for the delay in bringing the application was not entirely satisfactory, but condonation was granted in the interests of justice. However, on the merits, the applicant was not entitled to rescission as the requirements of...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed; condonation for lateness granted; costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The Applicant is granted condonation for the lateness in bringing the application.
  • The application is dismissed.