MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government and Another v Leslie In re: Bredenkamp v MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (92415/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 105 (28 March 2019)

MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government and Another v Leslie In re: Bredenkamp v MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government and Another (92415/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 105 (28 March 2019)

Despite the applicants' gross negligence and lack of diligence in handling the matter, the court found that they provided a reasonable explanation for their default and demonstrated a bona fide defence supported by an eyewitness affidavit. The applicants showed a genuine intention to defend the action, as evidenced by their subsequent conduct, including filing a notice of intention to defend, arranging an inspection in loco, and seeking court documents. The requirements of Rule 31(2)(b) were met, and condonation for the late filing was granted. The default judgment was rescinded to allow the dispute to be properly ventilated in open court, but the applicants were ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 105
Parties
Applicant: MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government; Applicant: Head of Dr Fabian and Florence Ribeiro Centre; Respondent: Gordon Leslie; Plaintiff: Gordon Leslie Bredenkamp; Defendant: Gauteng Provincial Government; Defendant: Head of Dr Fabian and Florence Ribeiro Centre
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Case Number
92415/2016
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing
Outcome
Application for rescission of default judgment granted; condonation for late filing granted; applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs.
Judges
R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Default Judgment, Duty of Care, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Rescission of Judgment Condonation Default Judgment Duty of Care Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

MEC For Social Development Gauteng Provincial Government

Applicant

Head of Dr Fabian and Florence Ribeiro Centre

Applicant

Gordon Leslie

Respondent

Gordon Leslie Bredenkamp

Plaintiff

Gauteng Provincial Government

Defendant

Head of Dr Fabian and Florence Ribeiro Centre

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Condonation for Late Filing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default and delay in bringing the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated a bona fide defence to the claim for damages arising from the veld fire.
  3. 3 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the rescission application.

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the applicants' gross negligence and lack of diligence in handling the matter, the court found that they provided a reasonable explanation for their default and demonstrated a bona fide defence supported by an eyewitness affidavit. The applicants showed a genuine intention to defend the action, as evidenced by their subsequent conduct, including filing a notice of intention to defend, arranging an inspection in loco, and seeking court documents. The requirements of Rule 31(2)(b) were met, and condonation for the late filing was granted. The default judgment was rescinded to allow the dispute to be properly ventilated in open court, but the applicants were ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of default judgment granted; condonation for late filing granted; applicants ordered to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the replying affidavit and the failure to launch the application within the time limits prescribed in Rule 31(2)(b).
  • The default judgment granted on 15 May 2017 under case number 92415/2016 is rescinded and set aside.