Moneymorathoe v Body Corporate of Pontrailto (52676/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 483 (3 September 2020)

Moneymorathoe v Body Corporate of Pontrailto (52676/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 483 (3 September 2020)

The court found that the default judgment granted on 25 August 2015 included amounts for which judgment had previously been granted, as well as interest and untaxed legal costs related to those amounts. This constituted an error in the proceedings, rendering the judgment erroneously sought within the meaning of Rule 42. The respondent conceded these errors and requested the court to rescind only the portion of the judgment relating to the previously adjudicated amounts, interest, and costs. The court held that, in such circumstances, rescission should be granted without requiring the applicant to show good cause. The applicant is entitled to defend the action, and costs are to be costs in...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 483
Parties
Applicant: Maselaelo Sharlotte Moneymorathoe; Respondent: The Body Corporate of Pontrialto
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 September 2020
Case Number
52676/2015
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of default judgment granted; applicant given leave to defend; costs to be costs in the action.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Rescission of Default Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Plus Petitio
Civil Procedure Rescission of Default Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31 Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Plus Petitio

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maselaelo Sharlotte Moneymorathoe

Applicant

The Body Corporate of Pontrialto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted on 25 August 2015 should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment debt erroneously included amounts previously adjudicated and awarded.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was properly served with the summons and had knowledge of the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the default judgment granted on 25 August 2015 included amounts for which judgment had previously been granted, as well as interest and untaxed legal costs related to those amounts. This constituted an error in the proceedings, rendering the judgment erroneously sought within the meaning of Rule 42. The respondent conceded these errors and requested the court to rescind only the portion of the judgment relating to the previously adjudicated amounts, interest, and costs. The court held that, in such circumstances, rescission should be granted without requiring the applicant to show good cause. The applicant is entitled to defend the action, and costs are to be costs in...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of default judgment granted; applicant given leave to defend; costs to be costs in the action.

Orders

  • The judgment granted by default in the matter of The Body Corporate of Pontrialto v Maselaelo Sharlotte Moneymorathoe under case number 52676/2015 is rescinded.
  • The applicant is given leave to defend the action.