Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Burger (59473/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 346 (15 May 2015)

Minister of Safety and Security and Another v Burger (59473/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 346 (15 May 2015)

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to rescission under Rule 31(2)(b) as they were not in default of delivering a notice of intention to defend or a plea. Even if they were entitled to approach the court under this rule, they failed to show good cause or a prima facie defence to the respondent's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 346
Parties
Applicant: Minister of Safety and Security; Applicant: Captain Nkumane; Respondent: Pieter Johannes Burger
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2015
Case Number
59473/2012
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Following Default Judgment on Quantum
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhapi V.V
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Striking Out of Defence, Quantum of Damages, Unlawful Arrest, Rule 35 Applications
Civil Procedure Delict Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Striking Out of Defence Quantum of Damages Unlawful Arrest Rule 35 Applications

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Minister of Safety and Security

Applicant

Captain Nkumane

Applicant

Pieter Johannes Burger

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Following Default Judgment on Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to rescission of the judgment granted on 7 November 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the action should have been set down in terms of Rule 31(4) for a hearing to determine quantum after the defence was struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants had locus standi and showed good cause for rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to rescission under Rule 31(2)(b) as they were not in default of delivering a notice of intention to defend or a plea. Even if they were entitled to approach the court under this rule, they failed to show good cause or a prima facie defence to the respondent's claim. Under Rule 42(1)(a), the applicants failed to establish that the deponent to the founding affidavit was an affected party or that the applicants themselves were prejudiced or adversely affected by the judgment. The striking out of the defence left the applicants without standing to participate further in the proceedings, and their subsequent actions were irregular. The...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.