Moraka and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Others (2019/12579) [2021] ZAGPJHC 453 (22 September 2021)

Moraka and Another v Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa and Others (2019/12579) [2021] ZAGPJHC 453 (22 September 2021)

The applicants failed to comply with a court order compelling discovery and did not provide a reasonable explanation for their default. They admitted non-compliance and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence to the claim. The court found no procedural irregularity or error in the granting of the default judgment, nor any ambiguity or mistake common to the parties. The applicants' arguments regarding service and lockdown restrictions were unfounded, as electronic service was agreed and permitted. Consequently, the requirements for rescission under rule 42(1)(a), 42(1)(b), or at common law were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 453
Parties
Applicant: Tshosa Jopa Moraka; Applicant: ISF Strategic Investment (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa; Respondent: Sheriff Halfway House; Respondent: Name Plate Center Signs (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Hans Christian Tileman; Respondent: Gerhardus Albertus Geel
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2021
Case Number
2019/12579
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on attorney-and-client scale.
Judges
K E Matojane
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Uniform Rules Rule 42, Default Judgment, Discovery Affidavit, Wilful Default
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Uniform Rules Rule 42 Default Judgment Discovery Affidavit Wilful Default

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

Parties

Tshosa Jopa Moraka

Applicant

ISF Strategic Investment (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa

Respondent

Sheriff Halfway House

Respondent

Name Plate Center Signs (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Hans Christian Tileman

Respondent

Gerhardus Albertus Geel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for rescission of default judgment under rule 42(1)(a), 42(1)(b), or at common law.
  2. 2 Whether the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default and demonstrated a bona fide defence.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with a court order compelling discovery and did not provide a reasonable explanation for their default. They admitted non-compliance and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence to the claim. The court found no procedural irregularity or error in the granting of the default judgment, nor any ambiguity or mistake common to the parties. The applicants' arguments regarding service and lockdown restrictions were unfounded, as electronic service was agreed and permitted. Consequently, the requirements for rescission under rule 42(1)(a), 42(1)(b), or at common law were not met, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs on attorney-and-client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay costs on attorney-and-client scale.