Masina v Nkosi (2334/2017) [2020] ZAMPMHC 4 (11 May 2020)

Masina v Nkosi (2334/2017) [2020] ZAMPMHC 4 (11 May 2020)

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to review a Small Claims Court judgment referred mero motu by the Commissioner or Clerk. The procedure followed in this matter was irregular and did not comply with the audi alteram partem rule, as the interested parties were not properly notified or given an opportunity to participate. The grounds advanced by the applicant for review do not fall within the statutory grounds for review under Section 46 of the Small Claims Court Act. The applicant's remedy lay in applying for rescission of judgment under Section 36 of the Act, not in seeking review. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to create a right of review where none...

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Fikie Masina; Respondent: Jabulani Nkosi
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2020
Case Number
2334/2017
Procedural Posture
Review Application / High Court Review of Small Claims Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for review is dismissed; matter struck from the roll.
Judges
Brauckmann, Kgoele
Legal Topics
Small Claims Court Review, Default Judgment, Rescission of Judgment, Audi Alteram Partem, Jurisdiction of High Court
Civil Procedure Small Claims Court Review Default Judgment Rescission of Judgment Audi Alteram Partem Jurisdiction of High Court

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fikie Masina

Applicant

Jabulani Nkosi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / High Court Review of Small Claims Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a Small Claims Court judgment referred mero motu by the Commissioner or Clerk.
  2. 2 Whether the procedure followed by the Commissioner and Clerk in submitting the matter for review complies with the audi alteram partem rule.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's grounds for review fall within the statutory grounds for review under Section 46 of the Small Claims Court Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court does not have jurisdiction to review a Small Claims Court judgment referred mero motu by the Commissioner or Clerk. The procedure followed in this matter was irregular and did not comply with the audi alteram partem rule, as the interested parties were not properly notified or given an opportunity to participate. The grounds advanced by the applicant for review do not fall within the statutory grounds for review under Section 46 of the Small Claims Court Act. The applicant's remedy lay in applying for rescission of judgment under Section 36 of the Act, not in seeking review. The High Court's inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked to create a right of review where none...

Court Disposition

Application for review is dismissed; matter struck from the roll.

Orders

  • The case from the Msukaligwa (Ermelo) Small Claims Court case number SC23/17 is not subject to review by this court and is struck from the roll.