Moholi v Body Corporate Borgo De Felice (012936/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 242 (14 March 2023)

Moholi v Body Corporate Borgo De Felice (012936/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 242 (14 March 2023)

The court found that the respondent failed to meet the requirements of urgency as stipulated in Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The respondent did not provide explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent nor reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The delay between the granting of the default judgment and the launching of the urgent application was unexplained. The respondent was aware of the electricity disconnection and the consequences thereof but did not act promptly. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of urgency. Furthermore, the respondent was warned to withdraw the application and persisted despite clear...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 242
Parties
Applicant: Mokete Felix Moholi; Respondent: Body Corporate Borgo De Felice
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Case Number
012936/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Rescind Default Judgment; Determination of Urgency
Outcome
Urgent application dismissed for lack of urgency; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.
Judges
ML Senyatsi
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Urgency Requirements, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Rescission of Default Judgment Urgency Requirements Attorney and Client Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokete Felix Moholi

Applicant

Body Corporate Borgo De Felice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Rescind Default Judgment; Determination of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urgent application to rescind the default judgment meets the requirements of urgency under Rule 6(12)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent provided sufficient explanation for the delay in bringing the application.
  3. 3 Whether punitive costs should be imposed for abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to meet the requirements of urgency as stipulated in Rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. The respondent did not provide explicit circumstances rendering the matter urgent nor reasons why substantial redress could not be afforded at a hearing in due course. The delay between the granting of the default judgment and the launching of the urgent application was unexplained. The respondent was aware of the electricity disconnection and the consequences thereof but did not act promptly. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of urgency. Furthermore, the respondent was warned to withdraw the application and persisted despite clear...

Court Disposition

Urgent application dismissed for lack of urgency; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The urgent application launched by Mr Mokete Felix Moholi is not urgent and is hereby dismissed.
  • Mr Mokete Felix Moholi is ordered to pay the costs on the scale as between attorney and client.