Munyan v Nedbank Limited (40796/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 507 (21 July 2022)

Munyan v Nedbank Limited (40796/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 507 (21 July 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that she delivered a written notice of change of her chosen domicilium citandi to the respondent. The summons and default judgment application were served at the address chosen by the applicant in the instalment sale agreement, in accordance with Rule 4(1)(a)(iv). The policy document and related correspondence did not amount to a clear and unequivocal notification of change of domicilium citandi. Service at the chosen address was valid, and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The application for rescission was brought within a reasonable time and condonation for late filing was granted, but the applicant did not make out a case...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 507
Parties
Applicant: Chermelle Danielle Manyan; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2022
Case Number
40796/2019
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of default judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service at Domicilium Citandi, Default Judgment, Rule 42 Application
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Rescission of Judgment Service at Domicilium Citandi Default Judgment Rule 42 Application

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chermelle Danielle Manyan

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant properly notified the respondent of a change in her chosen domicilium citandi.
  3. 3 Whether service at the chosen domicilium citandi was valid despite the applicant not residing there.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that she delivered a written notice of change of her chosen domicilium citandi to the respondent. The summons and default judgment application were served at the address chosen by the applicant in the instalment sale agreement, in accordance with Rule 4(1)(a)(iv). The policy document and related correspondence did not amount to a clear and unequivocal notification of change of domicilium citandi. Service at the chosen address was valid, and there was no irregularity in the proceedings. The application for rescission was brought within a reasonable time and condonation for late filing was granted, but the applicant did not make out a case...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of default judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The rescission application is dismissed with costs.