Milazi and Another v South African Legal Practice the Council and Another (45162/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 473 (22 May 2024)

Milazi and Another v South African Legal Practice the Council and Another (45162/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 473 (22 May 2024)

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default due to illness, but failed to establish bona fide defences with prospects of success. The defences raised were either repetitions of those already rejected in the main application or were legally and factually unsound. The Council complied with the relevant statutory requirements, and the applicants were afforded an opportunity to respond. The rescission application was not made bona fide but was a stratagem to delay the implementation of the judgment. The applicants failed to show good cause as required under the common law for rescission. The costs orders were properly granted and no grounds were...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 473
Parties
Applicant: Phindile Patricia Milazi; Applicant: PP Milazi Incorporated; Respondent: South African Legal Practice the Council; Respondent: The Sheriff Roodepoort South
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2024
Case Number
45162/2019
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Opposed Rescission Application
Outcome
Application for rescission of the default judgment is dismissed with costs.
Judges
SJR Mogagabe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Curator Bonis Appointment, Legal Practitioners Trust Accounts, Audi Alteram Partem, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Curator Bonis Appointment Legal Practitioners Trust Accounts Audi Alteram Partem Costs Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phindile Patricia Milazi

Applicant

PP Milazi Incorporated

Applicant

South African Legal Practice the Council

Respondent

The Sheriff Roodepoort South

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Opposed Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown good cause under the common law for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default due to illness, but failed to establish bona fide defences with prospects of success. The defences raised were either repetitions of those already rejected in the main application or were legally and factually unsound. The Council complied with the relevant statutory requirements, and the applicants were afforded an opportunity to respond. The rescission application was not made bona fide but was a stratagem to delay the implementation of the judgment. The applicants failed to show good cause as required under the common law for rescission. The costs orders were properly granted and no grounds were...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of the default judgment is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the default judgment issued against the applicants on 25 February 2021 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered jointly and severally to pay the costs of this application, on scale B.