Masenya and Another v Tau Rollermeule (Pty) Ltd (84019/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 213 (10 March 2021)

Masenya and Another v Tau Rollermeule (Pty) Ltd (84019/16) [2021] ZAGPPHC 213 (10 March 2021)

The court found that the first applicant did not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings, as the order was granted solely against the second applicant and the suretyship was not relevant to the present application. The application for joinder was dismissed. The court held that the order making the settlement agreement an order of court was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a), as no litigation preceded the agreement and the order did not relate to a lis between the parties. However, the recission application was brought two years and nine months after the order, and the application for condonation was filed almost a year later, with no proper explanation for the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 213
Parties
Applicant: LS Masenya; Applicant: Murcus M Farming CC; Respondent: Tau Rollermeule (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2021
Case Number
84019/16
Procedural Posture
Recission Application / Judgment on Application for Recission, Joinder, and Condonation
Outcome
Application for joinder, condonation, and recission dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Recission of Judgment, Joinder of Parties, Condonation for Late Filing, Settlement Agreement, National Credit Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Recission of Judgment Joinder of Parties Condonation for Late Filing Settlement Agreement National Credit Act

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LS Masenya

Applicant

Murcus M Farming CC

Applicant

Tau Rollermeule (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Recission Application / Judgment on Application for Recission, Joinder, and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first applicant should be joined to the proceedings due to a direct and substantial interest.
  2. 2 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the recission application.
  3. 3 Whether the order granted on 15 November 2016 making the settlement agreement an order of court should be rescinded under Rule 42(1)(a).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first applicant did not have a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings, as the order was granted solely against the second applicant and the suretyship was not relevant to the present application. The application for joinder was dismissed. The court held that the order making the settlement agreement an order of court was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a), as no litigation preceded the agreement and the order did not relate to a lis between the parties. However, the recission application was brought two years and nine months after the order, and the application for condonation was filed almost a year later, with no proper explanation for the...

Court Disposition

Application for joinder, condonation, and recission dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application for joinder is refused.
  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the recission application is dismissed.