Modingwana v Body Corporate Amber Hill (23514/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 524 (3 June 2024)

Modingwana v Body Corporate Amber Hill (23514/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 524 (3 June 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any facts under oath as to when she became aware of the default judgment, and did not comply with the twenty-day period prescribed by Rule 31(2)(b). No sufficient explanation for the delay was provided, nor was any factual basis for condonation established. The applicant did not present facts supporting a bona fide defence, and the allegations of money laundering were unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence or criminal investigation. The respondent's version, supported by evidence of proper service and lawful management of the levy account, was accepted. The application for rescission was thus not instituted within the prescribed...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 524
Parties
Applicant: Glancinah Shasha Modingwana; Respondent: Body Corporate Amber Hill
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2024
Case Number
23514/2020
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Rescission application dismissed with costs.
Judges
De Beer
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Default Judgment, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Condonation Default Judgment Bona Fide Defence

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glancinah Shasha Modingwana

Applicant

Body Corporate Amber Hill

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established a bona fide defence to the default judgment.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the rescission application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide any facts under oath as to when she became aware of the default judgment, and did not comply with the twenty-day period prescribed by Rule 31(2)(b). No sufficient explanation for the delay was provided, nor was any factual basis for condonation established. The applicant did not present facts supporting a bona fide defence, and the allegations of money laundering were unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence or criminal investigation. The respondent's version, supported by evidence of proper service and lawful management of the levy account, was accepted. The application for rescission was thus not instituted within the prescribed...

Court Disposition

Rescission application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The rescission application is dismissed with costs.
  • The order granted on 5 March 2024 is confirmed.