Moseamedi and Another v Mapela Task Team (1437/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 1 (12 February 2020)

Moseamedi and Another v Mapela Task Team (1437/2019) [2020] ZALMPPHC 1 (12 February 2020)

The court found that the applicants had served and filed a notice of intention to oppose the respondent's application, which should have prevented the matter from being heard as unopposed. The respondent's notice of motion created the impression that only a notice of intention to oppose was required to avoid the application proceeding on 21 May 2019. The applicants, acting in person, reasonably believed they had complied with the requirements. The court held that the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicants. Furthermore, the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their delay in filing the rescission application and demonstrated prospects of...

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 1
Parties
Applicant: M.M Moseamedi; Applicant: P.S Mabe; Respondent: Mapela Task Team
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2020
Case Number
1437/2019
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
MF. Kganyago
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Default Judgment, Notice of Intention to Oppose
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Condonation Default Judgment Notice of Intention to Oppose

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.M Moseamedi

Applicant

P.S Mabe

Applicant

Mapela Task Team

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for rescission of the default judgment granted on 21 May 2019.
  2. 2 Whether condonation for the late filing of the rescission application should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had served and filed a notice of intention to oppose the respondent's application, which should have prevented the matter from being heard as unopposed. The respondent's notice of motion created the impression that only a notice of intention to oppose was required to avoid the application proceeding on 21 May 2019. The applicants, acting in person, reasonably believed they had complied with the requirements. The court held that the default judgment was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicants. Furthermore, the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their delay in filing the rescission application and demonstrated prospects of...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission granted; default judgment rescinded; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing of the applicants' rescission application is granted.
  • The default judgment granted against the applicants on 21 May 2019 is rescinded.