Mokaba and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Another (26719/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 666 (16 November 2020)

Mokaba and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Another (26719/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 666 (16 November 2020)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file an appearance to defend and did not set out any bona fide defence to the respondent's claim. The applicants admitted receipt of the summons with the case number and acknowledged their financial difficulties but did not respond to requests for payment arrangements. The requirements for rescission under rule 31(2)(b), rule 42, and the common law were not met. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 666
Parties
Applicant: Anthony Madimetja Benny Mokaba; Applicant: Ramaesela Dinah Mokaba; Respondent: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: High Court Sheriff for Centurion West
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2020
Case Number
26719/2019
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
G.T. Avvakoumides
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, National Credit Act, Mortgage Bond Enforcement, Rule 31 2 B, Rule 42
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment National Credit Act Mortgage Bond Enforcement Rule 31 2 B Rule 42

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Madimetja Benny Mokaba

Applicant

Ramaesela Dinah Mokaba

Applicant

Absa Bank Limited

Respondent

High Court Sheriff for Centurion West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file an appearance to defend.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have set out a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for rescission under rule 31(2)(b), rule 42, or the common law have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file an appearance to defend and did not set out any bona fide defence to the respondent's claim. The applicants admitted receipt of the summons with the case number and acknowledged their financial difficulties but did not respond to requests for payment arrangements. The requirements for rescission under rule 31(2)(b), rule 42, and the common law were not met. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the first respondent's costs on the scale as between attorney and client.