Molefe and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (11897/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 556 (11 October 2018)

Molefe and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (11897/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 556 (11 October 2018)

The court found that the applicants failed to show good cause for their default, as no explanation was provided for their failure to enter an appearance to defend. The reference to Lodhi 2 Properties Investments CC was misplaced, as Rule 31(5)(a) does not require notice to a respondent who has not indicated an intention to defend. The applicants' defence of reckless credit was rejected because the first applicant had provided misleading information regarding her debt review status, and the respondent had conducted a reasonable assessment based on the information supplied. The court concluded that the applicants' prospects of success were bleak and that the application was not bona fide...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 556
Parties
Applicant: Busisiwe Portia Molefe; Applicant: Reuben Molefe; Respondent: Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
11897/2017
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(a)
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Reckless Credit, National Credit Act, Rule 42, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Reckless Credit National Credit Act Rule 42 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Busisiwe Portia Molefe

Applicant

Reuben Molefe

Applicant

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted in terms of Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown good cause for rescission of the judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim, specifically reckless credit under the National Credit Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to show good cause for their default, as no explanation was provided for their failure to enter an appearance to defend. The reference to Lodhi 2 Properties Investments CC was misplaced, as Rule 31(5)(a) does not require notice to a respondent who has not indicated an intention to defend. The applicants' defence of reckless credit was rejected because the first applicant had provided misleading information regarding her debt review status, and the respondent had conducted a reasonable assessment based on the information supplied. The court concluded that the applicants' prospects of success were bleak and that the application was not bona fide...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.