Matjokana v Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd (66439/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 648 (23 October 2020)

Matjokana v Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd (66439/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 648 (23 October 2020)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application and did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success. Service of the summons was properly effected at the applicant's place of residence, as the chosen domicilium had been vacated. The lease agreement was not properly cancelled under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the section does not apply to juristic persons and the conditions for consensual cancellation were not met. The plea of lis pendens is unsustainable because the magistrates' court summons was never served and thus the action was not alive between the parties. The point in limine regarding...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 648
Parties
Applicant: Nyiko Reginald Benadid Matjokana; Respondent: Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Case Number
66439/2017
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
De Vos
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Proper Service, Lis Pendens, Consumer Protection Act, Suretyship, Lease Agreement
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Proper Service Lis Pendens Consumer Protection Act Suretyship Lease Agreement

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nyiko Reginald Benadid Matjokana

Applicant

Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether service of the summons was properly effected on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the lease agreement was properly cancelled under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application and did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success. Service of the summons was properly effected at the applicant's place of residence, as the chosen domicilium had been vacated. The lease agreement was not properly cancelled under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the section does not apply to juristic persons and the conditions for consensual cancellation were not met. The plea of lis pendens is unsustainable because the magistrates' court summons was never served and thus the action was not alive between the parties. The point in limine regarding...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.