Mathys Wynand De Bruyn t/a De Bruyn and Associates v Classis Number Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Tshwane (13470/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 982 (7 December 2017)

Mathys Wynand De Bruyn t/a De Bruyn and Associates v Classis Number Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Tshwane (13470/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 982 (7 December 2017)

The court held that the respondent was entitled to serve summons at the applicant's chosen domicilium address, as stipulated in the written agreement. The applicant had not formally changed the domicilium address by written notice, and thus service at the original address was proper. The respondent's conduct in requiring a formal application for rescission and opposing the costs order was reasonable. The applicant's request for punitive costs was not justified, as the respondent acted within its contractual and procedural rights. The rescission of judgment was granted as the respondent did not oppose it, and the applicant showed good cause. Costs incurred up to 3 July 2017 are to be paid...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 982
Parties
Applicant: Mathys Wynand De Bruyn t/a De Bruyn and Associates; Respondent: Classis Number Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Tshwane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2017
Case Number
13470/17
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Costs
Outcome
Default judgment rescinded and set aside; costs order apportioned as per the judgment.
Judges
E Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service at Domicilium, Costs Order, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Service at Domicilium Costs Order 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathys Wynand De Bruyn t/a De Bruyn and Associates

Applicant

Classis Number Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Tshwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent acted reasonably in serving summons at the applicant's domicilium address despite knowing the applicant had vacated.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent should be liable for punitive costs for opposing the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was entitled to serve summons at the applicant's chosen domicilium address, as stipulated in the written agreement. The applicant had not formally changed the domicilium address by written notice, and thus service at the original address was proper. The respondent's conduct in requiring a formal application for rescission and opposing the costs order was reasonable. The applicant's request for punitive costs was not justified, as the respondent acted within its contractual and procedural rights. The rescission of judgment was granted as the respondent did not oppose it, and the applicant showed good cause. Costs incurred up to 3 July 2017 are to be paid...

Court Disposition

Default judgment rescinded and set aside; costs order apportioned as per the judgment.

Orders

  • The default judgment granted on 27 March 2017 is rescinded and set aside.
  • Applicant to pay the costs of the application incurred up to 3 July 2017.