Masango v Kimberley Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd ; In re Kimberley Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Masango (24922/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 58 (22 May 2007)

Masango v Kimberley Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd ; In re Kimberley Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Masango (24922/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 58 (22 May 2007)

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the summary judgment was granted in default of her appearance or in her absence. Her explanation lacked sufficient detail and was unsupported by evidence such as transcripts or confirmatory affidavits. The respondent's denial, though lacking detail, placed the matter in issue, and the applicant did not reply or provide further evidence. Without proof that the prerequisites for rescission were met, the application could not succeed. The facts before the court did not justify the relief sought, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Dikeledi Winnie Masango; Respondent: Kimberly Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2007
Case Number
24922/06
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default of Appearance, Summary Judgment, Rule 42, Onus of Proof
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default of Appearance Summary Judgment Rule 42 Onus of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dikeledi Winnie Masango

Applicant

Kimberly Clark of South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in default of appearance when summary judgment was granted.
  2. 2 Whether the prerequisites for rescission of judgment under common law or rule 42 were met.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the onus to show judgment was granted in her absence.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the summary judgment was granted in default of her appearance or in her absence. Her explanation lacked sufficient detail and was unsupported by evidence such as transcripts or confirmatory affidavits. The respondent's denial, though lacking detail, placed the matter in issue, and the applicant did not reply or provide further evidence. Without proof that the prerequisites for rescission were met, the application could not succeed. The facts before the court did not justify the relief sought, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.